Only one word comes to mind about Pastor Snyder's comments:

Amen.

Pretty much. If Hillary has not already left her church, then she's just condemning the mote in her neighbor's eye will ignoring the beam in her own. To use language Hillary would recognize if she actually went to church or understood the point of Christian worship.

I thought Hillary was very wise to stay out of the Rev. Wright fray, both for political reasons (no real gain to be had when all the negatives are being played out by extra-campaign forces) and reasons of the story's national relevance.  The fact that she has jumped in now, and left herself open to this quote by Snyder, shows unusually poor political judgment on her part.  

Hillary is very much the kind of politician who goes to church while cameras are showing her going to church to show her religious experience. Quite frankly I don't give a crap where you go to church as long as you act as a decent human being once you leave the doors of the chapel. That American have developed a religious litmus test by demanding to know one's religiousness is depressing from a secularist like me. I think many Americans confuse being religious with being spiritual and that the former implies morality while the later implies immorality and uncertainty.

And I'll keep waiting with baited breath when Americans can trust a non-religious person as being as, if not more moral, ethical and committed to the good of America, Americans and the world as a whole, as any Bible thumping, Koran chanting, Scroll reading person of religious persuasion.

So why die Wright's church choose to honor Farrakhan and defend Hamas? Is it because Jews belong in the gutter, so "racial reconciliation" does not apply to them?

r-ennis- right back at ya. If Wright is such an antisemite, why is Snyder defending him? And why is Hillary attending the church of an apologist for anti-semitism?

r-ennis, as I have said in other threads, I lived in China for 7 years and attended an underground Catholic church (only because of the eucharist), the Patriotic Catholic Church's priests all sing the praises of the Communist party. I don't judge anyone who goes there or condemn them. If you can't understand the value of people being able to attend whatever church they want, without being judged by others, then you have no real respect for freedom of religion. Falun Gong is a crackpot religion and I would never practice it, but my wifes cousin did and spent 2 years in a prison for doing so. Granted you are not saying Obama should go to prison, but you are implying that we have freedom of religion, but forget actually being part of the ruling elite unless your religion or your pastors meet universal approval. Everyone is free to agree with you.

Why the fuck don't we try judging Obama on what he says and does, and what his policies are, and leave the repression of religious freedom to the chinese. How about it?

I think you mean the transitive property.

Clearly, Snyder is a JUDAS!

blackton, I am sure that most Americans don't even realize that there is an underground Catholic church in China, or that the government's official "Catholic" church isn't recognized. I'm glad to see you posting on it. I think a lot of Americans ought to be made to live for several months in the PRC -- it would give them a different view of what freedom means, I think.

Amen Blackton.

About this post - um, Hillary is the more knowledgable candidate in this election for WHAT reason again?  She's a political dolt.  

I think by the time I had my first internship as a college a poli sci major, I'd know not to stick my foot in this one, especially if I hadn't spoken to my own pastor first.

(Sigh)  Same old Hillary. At least that tin ear is mildly amusing at times.

And from the same group of posters who, at other times, derided Falwell for his statements.  But then again, Falwell only backed Republicans.  

I don't have a problem that Hillary went there.  However, she shouldn't be surprised or upset when others hold her accountable for the people she associates with.  Several names come to mind.  But, I choose not to go there.

That being said, I have a big problem with Rev. Snyder's defense of Rev. Wright.  According to the quotation presented, Rev. Snyder said, "To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright..."   Really?  Let's consider a counter example.

Don Imus is a borderline hate-monger.  For several decades his daily radio show has been polluting the airwaves with offensive, moronic comments.  However, all it took was one racially tinged comment and he was dumped faster than a container full of month-old leftovers.  While I have no idea if Rev. Snyder made any public observations on the Imus affair, his observation about Rev. Wright is clearly wrong.  There are certain rhetorical areas that are out of bounds and anyone who crosses those boundaries pays a price.  After a long career of offensive comments, Imus was hounded from his job by people who weren't part of his audience because of a single comment that was out of bounds.  I could give other examples, but you get the point.  

Contrary to Rev. Snyder, no one is attempting to evaluate Rev. Wright's ministry, dynamic or otherwise.  Instead, Rev. Wright is being held to a widely held standard that if you make remarks that are deeply offensive to segments of our society, then you should be held accountable.  

felons, if your Imus analogy is valid, then I assume you will agree with me that the only appropriate resolution of this is for Wright to be fired from his national radio show.

Rhubarbs, my only real point was that it is fair for Rev. Wright to be held accountable for his remarks.  In that, I disagreed with Rev. Snyder whose quotation suggested that we should ignore the remarks.

However, if you project from my analogy, I would be against firing him from his national radio show, even if he had one.  In that context, Rev. Sharpton would be a better comparison.  Personally, I find Rev. Sharpton loathsome and, not surprisingly, I don't listen to his show.  (If you prefer, you can substitute Rush Limbaugh for Rev. Sharpton.  I find him equally loathsome.)  If he were to say something on his show that would make my blood boil, I would never hear it unless it is reported on some other media.  However angry I might get about those hypothetical comments, it would be wrong for me - as a non listener - to make judgments that affect what his audience may or may not listen to.  However, I would very much favor giving attention to the hypothetical comments so as to show that they are offensive, probably mendacious and rejected by the mainstream.

As to the current issue of Clinton's comments, I don't have a problem with the fact that she chose to comment.  If anything, I think she hurt herself by doing so.  She wouldn't go to Rev. Wright's church.  Fair enough.  But it then becomes fair to judge her by the outstanding people she has chosen to surrounded herself with.  Denise Rich, perhaps?  How about that cheating, non-inhaling, draft-dodging, ethically-challenged ex-president she keeps company with?