The second segment of Sunday's broadcast of NBC's "Meet the Press" was a discussion of race and how Obama's presidency will change the dynamics and dialogue around race in the U.S.
In other news: A woman has been selected to give the inaugural sermon... a first. The Rev. Sharon Watkins will deliver the sermon at the traditional National Prayer Service on January 21, the day after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced Sunday. Watkins is the general minister and president of the 700,000-member church Disciples of Christ. The sermon will take place at the National Cathedral in northwest Washington.
~ ~ ~
plez sez: this stimulus plan is a scary proposition... i'm glad that we'll have Obama at the helm while it is being worked out. we are looking at adding one to two trillion dollars to the deficit. this thing will not work if it is assembled and slammed down the throats of the US if done in a similar manner of
my oldest and dearest aunt passed away on sunday morning, my mother called alittle after 6:30 AM with the news. my mother's family grew up on a small 100-acre farm in the heart of tobacco country in north carolina. my aunt was the third oldest of 11 children, my mother was the youngest. my aunt was born in 1914 and made her way up to new york city in the early 1930's to get married. after her husband retired, they moved back down to north carolina and built a modest brick home on a tract of land on that same farm where she grew up.
she saw more than most people would like: depression, racism, despair, and loneliness (her husband departed this life back in the mid-1980's).
she was my favorite aunt. while growing up in new york, we would frequently go to her house in queens for dinner after attending church on sunday. she was at all of our birthday parties, family reunions, church events, and anything else that involved our family.
my last conversation with my aunt was just before the general election. i called her on the phone and we talked about voting for BARACK OBAMA. in her 90-plus years, she was still awe-struck that we could be so close to electing the first Black president. she couldn't get around too good, but she assured me that wild horses couldn't keep her from having her nurse take her down to the polls to vote (as she had done during the primaries).
the rest is history. sadly, a chapter in the colorful history of plezWorld closed on sunday morning... but we'll all look to the heavens on next tuesday and thank the Lord for the opportunity to witness the inauguration of our nation's promise.
Earlier in the week, it was announced that Rick Warren, bestselling author and pastor of the 20,000-member Saddleback Church in Southern California, would give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration in January. Warren is against gay marriage and he was a vocal supporter of California's Proposition 8 - a ban on gay marriage - which passed in November. He has also reportedly made some very disparaging remarks about gay men, in particular, from his position as pastor of this mega-church.
As one would suspect, gay activists have come out of the woodwork to oppose this decision by Obama to include this guy in his inauguration, much less provide the invocation! Even though, Obama has been a staunch supporter of gay rights, he does agree with Warren that the definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman (to the surprise of many, plezWorld agrees with this definition of marriage). One talking head has written that Obama is a bigot for including this homophobic preacher in his program.
Recall during the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama visited Saddleback Church and Rick Warren for what was called the Faith Forum. Each candidate was given the opportunity to provide insight on a number of issues (including gay marriage). Warren did not insert his opinion in the forum and it turned out to be one of the best "debates" that was held in 2008, even though, Obama was a bit too cerebral and thoughtful for most listeners.
~ ~ ~
In an effort to provide some balance to the dust up about Barack Obama and Rick Warren, plezWorld will provide opposing views below:
Excerpts from CNN Commentary "Respect Obama's choice of Rick Warren":
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
I support a woman's right to choose and civil rights for gays and lesbians. And when I have flashes of intolerance, it's often an intolerance of those who seem intent on taking away the rights of others.
And unlike Warren, who is an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8 -- the divisive ballot measure that amended the California constitution to ban gay marriage -- I opposed the initiative. For many on my side of the issue, this was bigotry on full display; for me, it was bullying.
One minute, gay couples in my state had to the right to marry; the next, they didn't. The privilege was stripped away by brute force just because a slim majority had the votes to do it. That's cruel, arrogant and wrong.
But the Warren controversy doesn't have anything to do with all that. This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.
It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.
The anti-Warren protesters are looking at the big picture and insisting that the selection of the mega-church pastor is a dead giveaway that Obama isn't interested in advancing gay rights or preserving abortion rights. They say that he just used those groups to get elected and has now thrown them overboard.
That's absurd. And it's an awful lot to glean from the simple act of asking someone to deliver an invocation. Why not let Obama get sworn in and have a chance to govern before we assess whether he'll remain loyal to the base?
The tale gets more curious. Even as Obama takes fire from liberal friends on the left, Warren is taking his share of criticism from conservative supporters on the right who can't believe he is even associating with Obama, let alone appearing at his inauguration.
But what did either camp expect anyway? Those familiar with the evangelical movement in America should already know that Warren falls on the moderate portion of the spectrum. And, if gay rights activists are surprised that Obama would share the spotlight with an opponent of gay marriage, they need to do more research.
Obama himself has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, a view that also happens to be shared by Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
That didn't stop many on the left from helping to elect Obama and Biden. Nor should it disqualify a certain pastor from blessing their inauguration.
Now that will be something.
Excertpts from CNN Commentary "Choosing Rick Warren was a mistake":
By Kathy Kolbert
The announcement that Pastor Rick Warren has been chosen to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony landed with a thud in my inbox.
Many people who know Warren as the affable mega-church pastor and best-selling author may be confused about the anger and disappointment that his selection has generated among progressive activists who worked so hard to help elect Obama. Here's my explanation; you can find plenty of other voices online.
Warren enjoys a reputation as a bridge-building moderate based on his informal style and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa.
He took grief from some of his Religious Right colleagues when he invited then-Senator Obama to his church for a conference on AIDS a couple of years ago. And, in August he hosted presidential candidates Obama and McCain at his church.
Warren has worked hard to cultivate a moderate public personality but his views are very similar to those of traditional Religious Right leaders.In an email sent before the 2004 election he wrote a Falwell-esque message proclaiming that, for Christian voters, the issues of abortion, marriage for same-sex couples, stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia were "non-negotiable." In fact, he said, they are "not even debatable because God's word is clear on these issues."
And while some Religious Right leaders were nervous that Warren would give Obama a platform to talk about poverty and the environment at the August event, Warren thrilled them by eschewing those issues entirely in order to emphasize issues like abortion and marriage that worked to McCain's advantage with the evangelical audience.
Warren also campaigned for Proposition 8, the initiative that stripped same-sex couples in California of their right under the state constitution to get legally married. But it's not just his support for Prop. 8 that is so galling to equality activists.
It's that Warren, in an interview with Beliefnet.com, has since equated allowing loving same-sex couples to get married with redefining marriage to permit incest and pedophilia.
And he has repeated one of the Religious Right's big lies: that somehow allowing marriage equality to stand would have threatened the freedom of preachers like him to say what they thought about homosexuality. That's not remotely true, but it's a standard tool of Religious Right leaders trying to resist the public's increasing support for equality.
In other words, Warren has been divisive and dishonest on the issues of marriage equality and religious freedom -- and on other issues important to many Obama supporters, as well.
He adamantly opposes a woman's legal right to abortion and dismisses common-ground efforts to reduce the need for abortion by comparing them to accommodating the Holocaust. He is disrespectful of progressive people of faith, suggesting that they are tools of the Democratic Party or more Marxist than Christian.
So much for the values of unity and respect, not to mention the constitutional principle of equality, on which President-elect Obama campaigned.
Why exactly is he being given the high honor of delivering the invocation at one of the most historic ceremonies in American history?
There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good. Rev. Joseph Lowery, who has been selected to give the benediction, is a lifelong advocate for justice. There are others like him, and in our increasingly diverse nation, they aren't all Christian.
Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances and has every right to promote his religious views. But he doesn't need or deserve a position of honor at the inauguration of a president who has given hope to so many Americans by rejecting the politics of division and emphasizing his commitment to constitutional values.
I am still excited about the tremendous changes in policy that I expect under an Obama administration. But it's the job of progressive advocates to hold public officials accountable, and to speak up even when our friends drop the ball. This decision, which will leave a bad taste in the mouths of many passionate supporters of Barack Obama, is one of those times.
Excerpts from CNN Story "Choice of Warren reflects diversity of ideas":
Mr. Obama’s forceful defense of Mr. Warren, the author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” has signaled an intent to continue his campaign’s effort to woo even theologically conservative Christians. As his advisers field scores of calls from Democrats angry because Mr. Warren is an outspoken opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama has insisted that a range of viewpoints be expressed at the inauguration festivities next month in Washington.
“That’s part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to reporters here this week. He added, “That’s hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.”
The growing alliance of Mr. Obama and Mr. Warren — each of the two publicly refers to the other as “friend” — suggests that Mr. Obama hopes to capitalize on the signs of potential generational and political divisions within the evangelical Christian flock. For his part, Mr. Warren is increasingly being spoken of as a kind of minister to the nation, a status previously occupied by the Rev. Billy Graham.
V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, whose consecration caused a painful divide in his church because he is openly gay, said that when he heard about the selection of Mr. Warren, “it was like a slap in the face.”
Bishop Robinson had been an early public endorser of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, and said he had helped serve as a liaison between the campaign and the gay community. He said he had called officials who work for Mr. Obama to share his dismay, and been told that Mr. Obama was trying to reach out to conservatives and give everybody a seat at the table.
“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
Excerpts from CNN Story "Choice of Warren reflects diversity of ideas":
President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his pick of evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration next month as one of "a wide range of viewpoints that are presented."
"And that's how it should be, because that's what America is about," Obama said responding to a question at a news conference about his and Warren's differences on social issues. "That's part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated."
Liberal groups and gay rights proponents had criticized the president-elect on Wednesday for choosing Warren, who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Those socially conservative stances put him at odds with many in Obama's Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing.
"[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now," Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.
Obama in the news conference also defended his record on equality for gays.
"I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans," he said. "It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency."
People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is "deeply disappointed" with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has "consistent mainstream American values."
Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."
"The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said. "But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."
Douglass also noted that Obama and Warren agree on several issues, including advocating on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged and people who suffer from HIV/AIDS.
Obama pointed out that Warren had invited him to speak at his Saddleback Church two years ago even though Warren knew that he had views "that were entirely contrary to his."
"We're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."
Obama also pointed out that Southern Christian Leadership Conference co-founder the Rev. Joseph Lowery, "who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues," is also speaking.
Warren's support of California's Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws same-sex marriage in the state, sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents earlier this fall.
Warren, who has made it a practice not to endorse candidates or political parties, wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead "a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."
"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population."
Warren also stirred controversy earlier this week when he told Beliefnet.com his grounds for opposing same-sex marriage lie primarily on his right of free speech.
"There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech." In the 2008 election, Warren hosted Obama and Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, at a candidate forum held in his church.
First of all, Warren is homophobic. Second of all, he is adamantly anti-abortion. It is absolutely the wrong message for the first black President to give a major platform to a mega-church conservative evangelical who holds beliefs and ideals completely contradictory to the majority of the millions of people who elected you. The President's inaugural invocation should be a message of inclusion for all of the American people and how exactly is Warren going to accomplish that since he has a clear record of excluding others?
Third of all, his inclusion STINKS of political pandering on Obama's part and it makes me sick that Obama would use religion to score political points on his inauguration day. And since Obama threw Reverend Wright under the bus during his Presidential political campaign, how about picking a religious figure from his personal religious denomination of over twenty years to celebrate his inauguration? Could you imagine the power and symbolism of an African American woman pastor delivering the invocation?
I hear liberals are in an outrage that President elect Obama chose Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration next month. Supposedly the most vocal resistance is coming from the gay rights movement. On the heels of the gay marriage ban in California as well as a few other states, they aren’t too keen on the idea of an evangelical Christian praying the president into office.
I have a message for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters on this one. “Stand down and pick another battle!” Its is silly and short-sighted to raise hell over this one. For one, Rick Warren isn’t being appointed to any office here. He is a minister and author. He is not going to set forth any policies that affect the gay and lesbian communities. If you do some research on him, you will find that he is one of the most forthright, honest and fair ministers in the country. Warren is no James Dobson or Pat Robertson. Billy Graham, (the traditional presidential preacher) walked away after the election became official cause he didn’t want to deal with a black man. Warren was the only minister who could pull off a presidential form the way he did. He allowed each man to speak on his faith and not offer an opinion on who he thought was “morally right.”
Does Warren believe in gay marriage? No. But everyone who does not agree with you is NOT necessarily your enemy. Faith as well as the precepts that support that faith are a personal issue and he has a right to his beliefs as you do yours. Again if you read his works and listen to his messages, you won’t find a person preaching today who is less judgmental than Mr. Warren. He’s been on the forefront of using his influence for AIDS prevention and awareness, holding an AIDS Summit at his church, with none of the slandering or gay blaming of other ministers. Who was speaking against Warren as he reached out to Obama for support of that program? People like Dobson and Robertson who are notoriously anti gay. Additionally, he is a guy who will listen and dialogue with the gay community. If one is willing to listen, you never know what could come of it.
I did a post on Rick Warren earlier this year when he was on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. In the midst of evangelical leaders vying for position to bring more of the divide and hate tactics to the campaign, Warren’s words were so bright and encouraging, I could see the glow in Russert’s face to have a minister of the gospel speak with such love and perspective. As a man who grew up in the church, loving its virtues and hating its hypocritical and judgmental ways, I felt good about Warren’s message, and even more so his presentation. This guy has it together. Of course you should fight on for what you believe in. However, Warren is the wrong target!
**As an added feature, I am posting the participants of proceedings on January 20th. You will also notice that Rev. Joseph Lowery (a pro gay rights minister) is also speaking and giving the benediction. Obama said this morning that the fact that Lowery and Warren do have some differences of opinions reflect why he chose them both as a reflection of our nation. That's a good thing. What do you think would have happened with a McCain administration?
~ ~ ~
plez sez: correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the entire premise of Obama's campaign that he was the best person to work with disparate and opposing views? Obama has never wavered in his support of gay rights, BUT he cannot stack his inauguration, nor his Cabinet, with folk who agree with him 100% of the time.
his selection of rick warren as the invocation speaker and joseph lowery as the benediction speaker is completely consistent with how Obama ran his campaign, how he picked his Cabinet members, and how he intends to run this country. we only move forward when we hear thoughts and opinions from all quarters. he is breaking the paradigm of right vs. left, blue vs. red, gay vs. straight, black vs. white... even though, rich warren's message isn't always one of inclusion, the message Obama sends must always be one of inclusion!
Obama is going to be the president of people who support gay marriage as well as people who think gays will burn in the fires of Hell. as he has said so many times, we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
gay rights advocacy groups are way off base in their protest of Obama's choice of Warren to speak at his inauguration.
By all accounts, for about 20 years, Sarah Palin was what we call in these parts a Holy Roller, or a Pentacostal.
Some will shout hurrah!
Others will shake their heads in dismay.
While still others will commence to speaking in tongues (bommala-bommala-bommala-shaaaaaaay!).
plezWorld sez, "big deal!"
CNN.com reports that Sarah Palin's pastor, Tim McGraw, of 20 years believes that the GOP is playing down Palin's Pentacostal roots. What follows are excerpts from the CNN.com report on Palin's faith:
For more than two decades, current Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was a practicing Pentecostal.
She belonged to the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska. But though she attended the church from her teenage years through to 2002, she hasn't talked much about her religion since joining the Republican ticket.
Palin's former pastor, Tim McGraw, says that like many Pentecostal churches, some members speak in tongues, although he says he's never seen Palin do so. Church member Caroline Spangler told CNN, "When the spirit comes on you, you utter things that nobody else can understand ... only God can understand what is coming out of our mouths."
Some Pentecostals from Assembly of God also believe in "faith healing" and the "end times" -- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming.
"Our basic belief is that God is God and he knows where history is going and he has a purposeful plan and within the middle of that plan we live in an environment in our world where certain events would take place," says McGraw. "Sarah wasn't taught to look for one particular sign -- a cataclysmic sign. She knew as every Christian does ... that God is sovereign and he is in control."
The McCain campaign says the Governor doesn't consider herself Pentecostal.
Palin's former pastor says he has no doubt her religious beliefs will influence her decision making when it comes to government policy. Regarding her desire to build an Alaskan pipeline and explore for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, McGraw told CNN, "Sarah knows that in Genesis, God creates the world and it's very good and that we're supposed to be caretakers in terms of not destroying the environment, so there's no way that Sarah is going to exploit or damage the Alaska tundra in the name of getting gas if she doesn't have to."
Six years ago, Palin left Assembly of God to join the non-denominational Wasilla Bible Church. But the Assembly of God says she still returns for special conferences and events, such as the graduation of ministry students in June. Video of a speech she gave at the church just two months before joining the Republican ticket is making the rounds on the Internet.
Speaking of the troops in Iraq, Palin says on the video, "Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."
Her campaign says she doesn't mix her faith with government business. But Palin did ask her audience to pray for $30 billion natural gas pipeline she is on a mission to build in Alaska. In the video Palin says, "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas pipeline built. So pray for that ... I can do my job there in developing my natural resources. But all of that doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart is not good with God."
McGraw, who was her pastor until 1998 and while she was mayor of Wasilla, says Palin attended discipleship classes to strengthen her Pentecostal faith and that he counseled her on how to become a better leader.
Read the CNN.com articles about Sarah Palin's church here and here.
Read what plez sez had to say about Obama and his faith here.
plez sez: i vaguely remember a two month conversation about Sen. Barack Obama's affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Wright's colorful patriotism. i recall getting sick to my stomach with every replay of that "God damn America" clip of Wright. and who could forget his tomfoolery at the national press club, before Obama had to cut him loose.
i guess she knew 6 years ago that membership in that church would be a political liability, unfortunately, it appears those very ties to Trinity Church in Chicago helped Obama get elected to the Illinois State Senate and the US Senate.
sarah palin and the holy rollers recalls that dim period of the presidential primary campaign. the insertion of one's religion into the campaign is simply wrong. i don't agree with palin's politics and i certainly don't agree with her church, but i would prefer to limit the conversation to her fitness for the job (or lack thereof) rather than pontificate on her weird religious views.
to my way of thinking, what one does on sunday (or saturday) in their house of worship is no business of mine. we are a nation of laws and our constitution strictly prohibits the establishment of a state religion (separation of church and state)... and as long as one's faith-based views remain in their house of worship and within their family, i see no place for their religious affiliation in a political discussion.
so, YES, i am creeped out that sarah palin could've been speaking in tongues at her church, and i am a disturbed that Obama found his faith at the hem of the robe of jeremiah wright... but i give their faith very little weight as to how i will choose to exercise my right to vote. as long as the candidates are able to keep a strict line between their faith and their governance, i don't have a problem with it.
to be honest, it would be best if we didn't know the theology of our elected officials.
Last night, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain were interviewed at the Saddleback Church by Sr. Pastor Rick Warren (author of A Purpose Driven Life) on CNN. The Christian evangelical audience was treated to two hour long one-on-one interviews of the two presidential nominees by the pastor of the church. Both candidates were more or less asked the same questions and were given as much time as necessary to respond.
The event was moderated by Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life" and one of the country's most prominent evangelical preachers. Warren, a Southern Baptist, referred to both McCain and Obama as friends in his introductions. "They both care deeply about America," Warren said. "They're both patriots."
The evening was painted as a portrait of contrast: where Obama was thoughtful, humble, and measured in his responses; McCain was direct, arrogant, and very definitive. Obama delivered shades of gray and nuance. McCain was simplistic, very black-and-white in his responses.
The candidates were asked questions in the following areas:
Greatest Moral Failing (Personal & United States)
Obama response: He expounded on his selfishness and concern for self during his youth (personal) and the government's tendency to forget the least of us (US).
McCain reponse: The failure of his first marriage (personal) and Americans haven't done enough to serve others (US).
Faith in Jesus
Obama response: He talked about leaning on the wisdom of Jesus and using his faith to help make decisions.
McCain reponse: When he was a POW in Viet Nam, apparently one of the guards was a Christian; he cited two examples of this guard demonstrating their shared faith.
Three Wisest People for Advise
Obama response: Obama chose his wife, Michelle; his grandmother; and a group of politicians that included former senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).
McCain reponse: McCain chose named General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq; Meg Whitman, a campaign adviser; and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), an Obama supporter whom McCain praised for his courage during the civil rights movement.
Definition of Marriage
Obama response: Union between a man and a woman, but agrees with the states' right to create civil unions for same-sex couples. "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view."
McCain reponse: Union between a man and a woman... PERIOD!
Stance on Abortion
Obama response: Pro-choice, not pro-abortion. He offered probably his most nuanced answer to this question, where he believes that work should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion.
McCain reponse: Pro-life, believes that life begins at conception... "I will be a pro-life president."
Use of Stem Cell Research
Obama response: Supports stem cell research using embryonic cells that are slated to be destroyed, but favors finding other "less controversial" methods, as well.
McCain reponse: Although, he believes life begins at conception, he supports the use of embryonic cells for stem cell research... confusion?
How to Deal with Evil
Obama response: He believes that evil can be found everywhere and it must be understood before it can be confronted. Once again, he balanced evil in Dafur with evil that is found right here in the United States!
McCain reponse: He fell into "stump speech mode" and only talked about bringing Osama bin Laden to justice (even if it takes him to the gates of Hell) as if that is the ONLY EVIL in the world - but this did lead to the biggest applause line of the evening.
What Supreme Court Justices Should Not Have Selected
Obama response: Clarence Thomas ("I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or a legal thinker at the time for that. I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of the Constitution."), Antonin Scalia (because he doesn't agree with his politics), but he had praise for Chief Justice John Roberts.
McCain reponse: He rattled off the four liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stephens) without much explanation... went into a short diatribe about legislating from the Bench (old Republican sound bite).
Read the CNN.com coverage about the about Faith Forum here and here.
Read the Jack Cafferty review, from CNN.com, of John McCain's performance here.
Read the Washington Post article about the Faith Forum here.
Andrew Sullivan did a live blog of the Obama and McCain interviews.
plez sez: this was easily the most thought provoking and revealing look at the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees for president. neither candidate dodged the questions, but both candidates varied greatly in the way that they approached answering the questions. and i feel, both offered a keen insight into the way they would approach issues that will undoubtedly crop up during their administration.
Obama was thoughtful, measured, deliberate, and quite humble in his approach. he didn't rely on cliche', didn't go after sound bites. his answers were well-thought and analytical... and in many cases, he offered both sides of an issue for consideration.
on the other hand, McCain played directly to the markedly conservative audience and leaned heavily on sound bite answers to questions. a number of his answer were so short, that the moderator had time to ask him additional questions that he did not ask of Obama.
i watched the program with plezWife; we both came away with the same assessment: Barack Obama is far and away the best person for leading this country forward, because his lack of jingoism and extreme arrogance allows him the ability to think through issues without promulgating and playing petty politics with serious issues. in stark contrast, McCain's performance was chilling in his hardline views, short snappy answers, and total lack of introspection. at no point during the entire hour interview, did john mccain once stop and take a long hard look at himself, humble himself, and then offer a thought-provoking response (i.e. his greatest moral failing was that his first marriage came to an end - he offered no thoughts as to why, nor did he even take part of the responsibility for it... as he put it, the marriage came to an end... PERIOD).
more than ever, the united states would be creating a GRAVE ERROR by voting john mccain into the white house. he exhibited the same "cowboy attitude" that precipitated the 5-year war in iraq, he leaned on the same "evil button" as george w. bush (terrorism, al-qaeda, and osama bin laden), and provided little or no insight into how he thinks. the thought of a mccain administration following 8 years of george w. bush SCARES ME!
plezWorld feels that anyone who thinks that john mccain will improve the united states is delusional. VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA... the world depends on it!
Gov. David Paterson of New York has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada. The New York Times reports that in a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses. This appears to be the first step in the legalization of same-sex unions in the state of New York. Currently, Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while New Jersey and Vermont allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
Read the entire New York Times article on same-sex unions here.
plez sez: i sincerely believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law. without benefit of a binding contract, gay couples do not have the same benefits as married couples (taxes, estates, insurance, etc.) in most states.
plezWorld was raised in a strict baptist household, went to church every sunday. to my way of thinking, marriage is a construct of religion. marriage was created to foster the stability of a household and build the continuity of a community. marriage was created for the purpose of procreation (i.e. having and raising children according to the norms of the community).
gay marriage doesn't seem to fit the construct that benefits the continuity of the norms of the community. my daughter has a school chum who had two mommies. those two mommies broke up and each has a new partner. now my daughter's friend has four mommies! parent-teacher conferences must be a real bee-yotch! i'm afraid that doesn't fit well with any social norm that comes to mind.
i think there is a simple solution to this conundrum: reserve marriage to a ceremony that is performed in a church and allow the state to sanction a civil union that can be recognized as a contract between two people for legal reasons. this way, the church can maintain the sanctity of marriage and the state can provide equal rights to those who religious beliefs don't fit into the constructs of a marriage (between a man and a woman). currently, you have to fulfill a number of requirements before you can get a state issued license to get married. why not make a slight change to that license to include any civil union between two people and then reserve the church sanctioned marriage to those who would rather preserve the religious recognition of their union?
my solution probably opens up another "can of worms" that hasn't even been considered, but i will leave that up to the reader to ferret out and set me straight!
If you ever thought that aligning oneself with Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a bad political move, check out who Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain describes as his "spiritual guide", a pastor by the name of Rod Parsley. He hates Islam and speaks of the beginning of a Holy War with the religion.
Check out Rev. Rod Parsley of Ohio:
...have you seen these clips repeated over and over on the nightly news, lately?
A few Rod Parsley quotes:
"Islam is an anti-Christ religion..." "America was founded - in part - with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." "Muhammad received revelations from demon spirits, not from the living God." "When it comes to Islam, the greatest religious enemy of our civilization in the world, it's dangerous."
Read more about John McCain's spiritual guide in Mother Jones.
plez sez: hmmmm... i wonder how many times this wack-job's comments will get looped on fox news network?!?
ole johnny came out today to reject the endorsement of rev. john hagee after he said that hitler was sent by god to hasten the jews return to israel. mind you, this was an endorsement that sen. mccain had sought out to shore up the religious right vote. and in an obvious swipe at Barack Obama, mccain says that at least he didn't attend hagee's church for the past 20 years! soon there after, rev. hagee rescinded his endorsement of mccain... some would call that a draw!
now, it appears that sen. mccain enjoys being in the company of religious zealots! this rod parsley guy is an unabashed islam basher! and some of his comments rank up there as ridiculous: i'd like to see one instance where the framers of the constitution even mention islam during the founding of the united states.
plezWorld is of the opinion that mccain will repudiate this guy in a few days. he should do it over the memorial day weekend... that tends to be a slow news period!
With the dawn will come Good Friday, to some, the beginning of the most sacred three days in Christianity. Actually, the whole notion of Christianity hinges on Easter and the notion that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day to sit at the right hand of God.
But if the notion of sin no longer exists, will that portend the end of religion, as we know it? Between Two Worlds poses a similar question, "[A]s Easter approaches, some pastors and theologians worry: How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners?"
Friday's edition of USA Today had an article that asked this question: is the "notion of sin" lost? plezWorld ain't at church every Sunday, but I have spent a great of time in church and was raised "knowing" that Jesus was nailed to the cross for me and my sinful ways. But now that I think about it... when is the last time that I considered a thought or action of mine to be a sin?
I'm still thinking...
And when you think about all the bad things that people do to each other with impunity and with the seeming loss of morality in this world, one has to wonder whatever happened to that little governor within us that said "thou shall not sin"? What about the Seven Deadly Sins: greed, lust, gluttony, and the rest of them? Is greed still a sin?
The USA Today article continues:
Take it from Pope Benedict XVI. He says the modern world "is losing the notion of sin." And not just personal sins such as greed, lust or the rest of the infamous Seven Deadlies, but social sins, too, such as polluting the planet or allowing injustice to flourish.
Pope Benedict, in his prayers last week, said, "People who trust in themselves and in their own merits are, as it were, blinded by their own 'I,' and their hearts harden in sin. On the other hand, those who recognize themselves as weak and sinful entrust themselves to God, and from him obtain grace and forgiveness."
Since the old sins aren't quite as deadly anymore... are there some new sins that we need to be concerned about? The article answers that question, too... Ellison Research conducted a poll in August 2007 and released the following results for the percentage of Americans who felt an action or thought was a sin:
Adultery: 81%
Racism: 74%
Using "hard" drugs, such as cocaine, LSD: 65%
Not saying anything if a cashier gives you too much change: 63%
Having an abortion: 56%
Homosexual activity or sex: 52%
Not reporting some income on your tax returns: 52%
Reading or watching pornography: 50%
Gossip: 47%
Swearing: 46%
Sex before marriage: 45%
Homosexual thoughts: 44%
Sexual thoughts about someone you are not married to: 43%
Doing things as a consumer that harm the environment: 41%
Smoking marijuana: 41%
Getting drunk: 41%
Gambling: 30%
Not attending church or religious services regularly: 18%
plez sez: based on this updated list... from top to bottom, i'm a sinner! there's a lot more stuff that i've done on the list, than stuff i haven't done on the list (and i can't have an abortion!)... i would suggest that you not stand too close to me if you don't want to get struck by lightning! *smile*
just curious... do you believe in sin? do you believe in hell? how many sins on the list above have you committed?
plezWorld loves art, especially old oil paintings, so i was intrigued by the imagery that was invoked by the picture that was chosen for this post.
picture description(from the Britain Tate exhibit): Satan, Sin, and Death from Milton's "Paradise Lost" by William Hogarth circa 1735-40 - Sin intervenes between the armed figures of Satan and Death as they prepare to fight at the gates of Hell. She is shown at the point of revealing to Satan that she is both his daughter and a former lover, and that the skeletal figure of Death is the offspring of their incestuous relationship.
[Sin] is pictured as if trapped and imprisoned by the many-headed tentacles that wrap themselves around her torso and writhe from her waist; furthermore, her expression and her gestures are tender and imploring, rather than malicious or manipulative. [Hogarth fuses] a feminised iconography of sentiment with a sublime and grotesque imagery of hell-fire, violence and monstrous masculinity.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the Senior Pastor of Barack Obama's Church in Chicago
The conservative blogger, Crunchy Con, has a long held belief that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright would evolve into a nagging issue for Barack Obama as the campaign progressed. His oft-inflammatory and borderline racist comments could not enhance the image of a guy who was trying to run a political race bereft of racial overtones with an eye to transformational politics. If you call a religious zealot your spiritual advisor, what does that say about you. Crunchy Con goes on to write:
I said that Jeremiah Wright was going to become a big issue for Barack Obama, but I didn't think it would happen so soon. With the release of this video, that time has probably arrived.
Politico describes Wright in this video as "deeply racially confrontational." Which might be an understatement. He rants and rails against "rich white people who run this country," demonizes white people, calls Jesus a "poor black man" oppressed by "Italians," says that Barack Obama "ain't privileged" -- this, even though Barack and Michelle Obama are Ivy-league grads in the top two percent of Americans in income. And so forth. This Wright is a clown.
While doing research for this blog entry, I find that the New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama has denounced the hate speech by his pastor and is taking steps to distance himself from Rev. Wright. He is quoted in the Times as writing the following at The Huffington Post,
"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
Read the entire blog post at The Huffington Post here.
plez sez: a man with a pen once wrote: "religion is the opiate of the masses" - okay, it was karl marx who wrote that passage in the 1840's... but the thought he was trying to convey still holds true: in our quest to explain the unexplainable, we find solace in our faith. as a presidential candidate in the united states, a candidate has to bend over backward to show that he/she is a god-fearing christian, but when you are bending over backwards with the likes of a buffoon, Obama would be better served to live up to the rumors that he's a muslim (i.e. get your opiates from another source)!
i'd hate to see the Obama Campaign get derailed on some B.S. spewed forth from a ranting lunatic, but that is exactly what will happen if he does not repudiate and move quickly to distance himself from this guy! Barack & Michelle Obama are Ivy League trained lawyers worth millions of dollars, he's one of only one hundred US Senators, and his campaign raised over $50 million last month: ummmm, the Obamas ain't missin' many meals... and they never have! trying to cast Obama as some poor little Black boy against the rich white Clintons just doesn't wash, no more than casting Jesus as the poor Black man being oppressed by the white Romans... step away from the Bible, dude! just put it down.
yo, Barack, i know you're supposed to be a christian and all... but do you have to practice your religion at this wack-job's church?!? we're trying to win a national election here... and having friends and associates who scare white folk ain't the path to the white house!
but this begs an even bigger question: is there a religion that supports a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-socio-economic society? aren't most religions based on the fact that their god looks out for his people AND i pity the heathen who would worship another god or diety? don't most religions evangelizes for their god and want everyone to convert to their way of worship? if that is the case, why would a country that professes to separate church from the state be so CRAZY over whether a candidate even practices a particular religion? i'm a member of a church and that church has a pastor, but i'm not inclined to share the name of the church nor the fervor with which i practice my religion... that seems to be a pretty private affair. by the same token, why would rev. jeremiah wright want to broadcast his message to his flock over YouTube? isn't his sermon during his 11 o'clock service only for the parishioners at his church? as you can see, i'd rather he kept his brand of religion confined to his church... and i'm sure that Barack Obama is in rapt agreement!
i began to write this blog post prior to reading about his denunciation of the pastor, but one has to admit, had hillary clinton or john mccain been members of a church where the minister was featured in YouTube clips spewing racial epitaphs and such, they would've had to leave the race! Obama is getting a pass on this one, but he can expect that ALL of his friends and associates (including Rezko) will continue to receive much more scrutiny in the coming weeks.
Barack Obama spoke at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s church in Atlanta, Georgia on Sunday, January 20th.
Senator Barack Obama: The Great Need of the Hour Atlanta, GA | January 20, 2008
The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.
But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram's horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yoke of oppression.
And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:
"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.
What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Unity is the great need of the hour -- the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame -- schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.
We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.
So we have a deficit to close. We have walls -- barriers to justice and equality -- that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily -- that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.
All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price.
But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes -- a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.
It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart -- that puts up walls between us.
We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays -- on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others -- all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face -- war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.
Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.
But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.
The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.
And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.
That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words -- words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.
He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort. Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.
That is the unity -- the hard-earned unity -- that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope -- the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.
The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.
And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.
And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.
And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope -- but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.
Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone.
In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone
In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone.
So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America.
Earl Paulk, founder and Archbishop of the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Decatur, Georgia turned himself in on Tuesday evening after a warrant for his arrest was issued for a perjury charge. The perjury charge stems from testimony that the 80-year old Paulk gave during a sexual misconduct deposition last summer. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison and $1,000 fine.
Read the entire Atlanta Journal-Constitution article here.
plez sez: i should insert a fitting quote here about putting one's faith in false prophets, but that would be too easy. and this whole story is so base, it should call into question ANYONE who dons a collar and calls himself a man of God!
this 80-year old coot was called in to give a deposition about alleged sexual misconduct that HE was conducting at his church over the past 4 decades. he claimed that he'd only screwed around with one church secretary. come to find out, DNA evidence shows that his 35-year old nephew, D.E. Paulk, a senior pastor in the church, is actually his son... yeah, old Earl was boning his younger brother's wife!
and it gets worse: one of his granddaughters claims that she was sexually assaulted on numerous occasions by this old man starting when she was only 7-years old!
one staffer claims to have been his "sex toy" for 14 years, with the old man claiming sex with him was her path to salvation. a number of former church employees and attendees have accused him of sexual molestation and sexual misconduct over the past 25 to 30 years!
there is no telling how many little girls were molested by this monster. how many women who went to church there fell into his trap of sexual deviancy? jail is too good for this pervert... my only hope that his old ass croaks before another dime is wasted on convicting him.
the street that runs past the church was renamed in his honor - Bishop Earl Paulk Parkway - i wonder how long it will take the county to remove the signs and rename it back to Flat Shoals Parkway!
it's scumbags like Earl Paulk who justify me not exposing my daughter to the falsehoods and lies of the church on sunday mornings. plezWorld was raised in the baptist church, went to sunday school every sunday, sung in the youth choir on the fourth sunday, and played my saxophone in every easter and christmas program i can remember. i occasionally feel twinge of guilt for not sharing the faith of my fathers with my daughter, and then money-grubbing and sex-starved perverts like Earl Paulk, Eddie Long, and Creflo Dollar (all local celebrity "preacherpimps") tell me that i'm right!
Read an excellent treatment of religion at Hypocrisy.
Mitt Romney joined Tim Russert on NBC's Meet The Press and discussed the racist past of the Mormon church on December 16, 2007. While defending the practice of excluding Blacks in church practices until 1978, Romney let fly with the notion that his father was a staunch supporter of civil rights and had in fact marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mitt Romney speaks of seeing his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. during his "Faith in America" speech on December 7, 2007.
plez sez: it was no surprise that the mormon faith had race-based exclusionary practices up until the mid-1970's. i was a bit surprised that a guy running for president in 2007 would continue to defend those practices as though everything is cool; hell, it's been 30 years since the church has renounced the practice! by evading tim russert's question on this issue, it seems that mitt romney is saying, "until 1978 when the church fathers had this epiphany about Black folk, racial discrimination in the mormon church was cool!"
but my jaw dropped when mitt romney went on to talk about how his father marched with MARTIN LUTHER KING, Jr.! say what?!? well, i had to look this up because something about that statement just didn't seem to ring true... to be honest, it comes off as political balderdash in an effort to get votes in an election year.
so i go to the salt lake tribune, the hometown paper of the mormon church... it seems that they can't seem to dig up this phantom march!
the boston phoenix is in the state where mitt was the governor for 4 years... they printed this explanation: "A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney [Mitt's father] and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 -- although possibly not on the same day or in the same city."
on to the detroit free press which is located in the state where george romney was governor when this march in 1963 with MLK allegedly took place. A spokesman for romney is quoted as saying, "He was speaking figuratively, not literally."
in other words, mitt romney is traipsing around the country LYING about his father's involvement with MARTIN LUTHER KING and the civil rights movement. as i wrote in a previous comment on plezWorld, i'm disturbed when Martin Luther King's lieutenants (like andrew young & jesse jackson) make a mockery of his legacy with their actions... so it makes my blood boil when some right-wing vote-whoring politician who couldn't care less (LITERALLY & FIGURATIVELY) about Black folk ties his political fortunes to the struggle of Black folk in America... mitt romney is plain sickening!
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that metro Atlanta-based mega churches of Rev. Creflo Dollar, of World Changers Church in College Park and Bishop Eddie Long, of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, have denied Sen. Charles Grassley's (R-Iowa) request for documents sought in a probe of nonprofits. A total of six mega churches, most of whom preach a version of Prosperity Gospel, were included in the probe.
The AJC quotes the church's reply to the senator's request:
The attorney for Dollar sent a letter that read in part, "...'Prosperity Gospel,' a deeply held religious belief that God's devout followers and earthly leaders will prosper and be successful in all they do, including in financial matters, as the outward expression of his favor."
... we believe that the religious doctrine and practices of a church should not be held out for the world to evaluate as a result of responding to Congressional inquiries."
The attorney for Long sent a letter that read in part, "[it] clearly disregards the privacy protections of the Church under law and appears to cross the line of Constitutional guarantees for churches."
Of the six requests, only Rev. Joyce Meyer, of Missouri, has complied with her church's financial records. In a written statement, Meyers says, "... this latest opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to transparency with our supporters and our dedication to the continual improvement of our own systems of accountability."
plez sez: let me state for the record, i wholeheartedly support the separation of church and state.
with that said, i find it unfathomable how one can ask for tax exempt or tax free status from the government, yet thwart the government to examine one's fitness for that status! it is obvious to me that these "prosperity preachers" are in IT for the money and cannot stand the glaring light of scrutiny into their ministries. i've visited one of the Atlanta-based mega churches and the ministry there is nothing like the religion i was raised with as a child... it is more commercial, more sanitized, more packaged... and frankly, far less inspirational. there is a profound emphasis on money and contributing money and counting your blessings of money and grandstanding about - you got it - money.
both churches do wonderful work in their respective communities, but i am concerned with the armored-car amounts of money that these preachers generate AND how this money is used to provide them with lavish lifestyles (large homes, expensive cars, jets, helicopters, and all the trappings of success). and if they happen to accidentally blurt out the name, Jesus... oh, never mind!
i do not work for the IRS, but i would think that if these "ministries" would like to maintain their tax exempt status, that they would have to submit financial records that support that status. and as Rev. Meyer wrote, shouldn't these churches want to be transparent with their constituents and the federal government which provides this tax exempt status? their fierce money grab and the attempt at obfuscation around the need to submit financial records makes me wonder if those "love offerings" and massive salaries are justified by our current tax code.
and since GOD made it possible for them to reap such huge rewards from their people, i'm sure this same GOD will watch over them during this government probe: if they have nothing to hide, i feel they should turn over their financial records.
~ husband ~ father ~ son ~ brother ~ mentor ~ subdivision dweller ~ northern by birth ~ southern by choice ~ raised a black baptist, now guided by the spiritual ~ raised a kennedy democrat, now politically dead center (moderate) ~ raised in a Cadillac Coupe Deville, now hooked on an SUV ~ college educated and still a student of life ~ wild college frat boy and now a settled alumnus ~ intellectual yet fun-loving geek ~ technical and leading edge ~ corporate cog ~ consultant ~ college football saturday devotee ~ and a ramblin' gamblin' helluva engineer (GO JACKETS!) ~
This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine; and they are in no way associated with the views of my employer, family, friends, or associates.
Posts
