I always thought the left was for separation of Church and State. Separating the Church from the lexicon that is this country.

Personally neither is fair, but when did that stop anyone.

MarkB on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Hahaha. I’m not sure why that struck me so funny. Its just so… right.

Go Barak!!

It is a simple question: do you or do you not believe in those remarks that your pastor made. Yes or no answer, what discomfort is there to that unless you are afraid that answering “yes” would alienate you from your church, and answering “no” would reveal that you are a racist.

Avoiding the topic is admitting guilt.

El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:49 PM

I don’t believe that. Avoiding the topic means you are uncomfortable with it. There are tons of possible reasons for discomfort.

I believe all citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

If it’s fair to ask Mitt Romney about the LDS church’s racial attitudes up to 1978, why isn’t it fair to ask about Obama’s current pastor’s current racial attitudes?

Why not? I heard the clips from him on Hannity and it doesn’t seem to do anything to engender better relations between races. It could hurt.

If it’s fair to ask Mitt Romney about the LDS church’s racial attitudes up to 1978, why isn’t it fair to ask about Obama’s current pastor’s current racial attitudes?

It’s fair because we have freedom of religion. We are free to go to church or not to go to church. Generally you spend money at a church because you want to support their causes. I think if Obama has gone to church regularly, this event is OK, but if he’s only responding to people saying he’s Muslim, well then he’s dishonest (no change there).

It’s good to see MM on the Tee Vee. The Obama is Muslim line of questioning is actually appropriate because (and I could be wrong) Muslims believe that the child is the religion of the father.

So while Christians and other non-Muslims might not consider him to be Muslim, Muslims consider him to be Muslim. That might be important for the Secret Service to know because Muslims also believe that apostates are subject to death. If Obama is not now considered to be a Muslim, he may be under bigger threat than a non-Muslim might due to his father’s religion. It isn’t what we think, it is what Muslims think.

Sort of like ‘religion of peace’. . . it doesn’t matter if non-muslims think it is, it matters what Muslims think. If they think jihad is a requirement, no matter how much non-muslims say it isn’t a part of the religion.

Megyn interviewed a CAIR person about the honor killing this morning. She called him on it when he tried to say that it is just like any other domestic violence. The difference is that other domestic violence isn’t considered by the perpetrator to be condoned by the church.

Good to see you on TV again MM. I’d like to see more of you.

I dont think it will matter. The muslim electin in canada included in his victory speach “this is a victory for Islam..” (not a victory for democracy or Canada), and the one elected in Wisconsin was part of the Nation of Islam, had ties to protesting the arrest of a convicted cop killer (he was using the race card of course, forget the fact the gang leader killed a cop among other people), and he had a restraiing order against him for assualting a woman
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015484.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015415.php

All of thius stuff was brought up by little guys but the big media there refused to cover it.
I wont matter. Obama would get a pass.

If it’s fair to ask Mitt Romney about the LDS church’s racial attitudes up to 1978, why isn’t it fair to ask about Obama’s current pastor’s current racial attitudes?

It is fair to ask and should be asked, sooner rather than later.

I think Michelle should run for governor of Maryland first, then go for the White House. I would support both campaigns with my time and treasure.

Asking him about allegations about his pastor is not necessarily guilt by association. It is simply asking him about his pastor and some oh his pastor’s quotes and whether or not he agree with them. Only when he refuses to answer or refuses to denounce those controversial statements does he become guilty. Guilt by association is labeling guilt from the get-go. Asking him, is giving him a chance to get the facts strait or at least to prove him case/stance. That is not guilt by association. It is just an honest question.

El Guapo on December 17, 2007 at 6:29 PM

You are right. That’s a honest question. But I will say even more then Mitt, because you can make an institutional argument there, this seems kind of pointless to me. Barack are you racist? If so who do you hate: your mother or your father?

Was glad to see Michelle eloquently point out the negative message of the “christian” church Obama belongs. Getting into their website when Obama first started his campaing was sure an eyeopener. I could not believe any church calling itself christian would advocate such bias and racism in their mission statement.

As usual, Ms. MM did a wonderful job on Fox News and I hope they use her more often on John Gibson’s show. Her clarity and fast recall of facts are amazing.

Bryan for Veep, Robert Spencer for DHS, Allah for Secretary of Technology with special initiatives on Robots, iPhones, and Fembots.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 17, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I’ll second that….;-)

I don’t believe in guilt by association.
Spirit of 1776

Asking him about allegations about his pastor is not necessarily guilt by association. It is simply asking him about his pastor and some oh his pastor’s quotes and whether or not he agree with them. Only when he refuses to answer or refuses to denounce those controversial statements does he become guilty. Guilt by association is labeling guilt from the get-go. Asking him, is giving him a chance to get the facts strait or at least to prove him case/stance. That is not guilt by association. It is just an honest question.

If it’s fair to ask Mitt Romney about the LDS church’s racial attitudes up to 1978, why isn’t it fair to ask about Obama’s current pastor’s current racial attitudes?

Answer: It is fair. Obama’s religious associations are just as open to discussion as Mitt’s or Huck’s. Although, I do think it would be a shame if any candidate were panned because of the church to which they belong, I think these discussions give valuable insight into the true nature of the man or woman.

Barack should be willing to speak frankly about his church’s doctrines and practices, especially any controversial ideals.