Yes, we can.

[Morrigoon]

I propose that Bush's salary is money being given to questionable people.

[Strangler Lewis]

I thought I read that they gave $27K to Rev. Wright in 2005 to 2006. So what? I would hope that anyone I would ever vote for who goes to a traditional church disagrees with 90 per cent of what comes out of the pulpit. Nonetheless, you give because that's what you do when you belong to a church community. If the objection is that this is really political activism under the guise of the Old Testament tradition of raging prophets, then, fine, let's take away the tax exemptions of all the megachurches and even some of the smaller ones like my sister-in-law's church where the congregation had a hissy fit at the thought of the American flag being taken out of the sanctuary.

My wife and I have belonged to various churches where we like the priest, he spouts the party line, we know to what extent he actually believes it, and we know that the proof in the pudding is in the makeup of the congregation. With one of the priests in San Francisco, a Russian dissident, it went both ways. He would read the official word about gays, but his choir director and most of the parish council were gay men, which was fine with him. He would also read the official word against capital punishment, but, privately, as a kneel-em-down-and-shoot-them-in-the-back-of-the-head Russian, he couldn't believe that I could represent death row inmates in good conscience.

Occasionally, my wife suggests that we find a church that's more officially in line with our political beliefs, like the breakaway pro-gay Episcopal group in Petaluma or the rich Episcopals in Sausalito who summarize Jesus's message as everyone should have a nice brunch. Frankly, I'm against it. Maybe I'm just an old Abraham who likes to argue with God.

More likely, I'm an American who believes in my version of self-evident truths. If I belong to a church or synagogue that's perfectly in line with my liberal moral beliefs and use that relationship with God to buttress my beliefs I'm really no better than a right wing evangelical or madrassah student like Obama.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.

Usually we agree on politics Leo, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

This is too small of a microcosm to make a judgment by. First, as stated in follow-up articles/posts, the $10K/$1.2M figure was at a time where they had other financial obligations. I put my family before others and I will not fault someone else for doing so. Second, donating money is not the only way to make charitable contributions. There are other actions that one can make that are more valuable to charities that are not monetary. For example, I provide services that are worth about $3K-$4K per year to the MS Society. However, other than mileage and a couple of other small amounts, it isn't tax deductible. If you were look at my returns, the percentage of charitable contributions would be about 1% as well.

But most importantly, I am not in favor of telling people what to do with their money. But making public their charitable contributions and attempting to shame them for it, people are trying to tell the Obamas what they should do with their money.

Whether someone contributes X% of their income to charity is not a measure of what kind of a person they are.

(In fact: in a small sense, I like the idea that a potential president is not in favor of giving away money right now. However, I do not believe that Obamas charitable donations are indicative of how much of my [a taxpayer] money he will give away.)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

That's fine. Do you think it's lame for the rest of Americans?Perhaps you do.

THEN SAY SO.

Don't single out one person, however high profile, if you have the same opinion of the other millions who don't get their tax returns made public.

I think anyone with an income that is measured in 7 figures that donates so little back in terms of percentage has issues. This goes for anyone, political opponent or not. I find it interesting that the giving has gone up as his political aspirations have also. Not that this is unique to politicians, but any politician who tells me that I'm not paying enough in taxes yet gives so little of their own away I have particular problems with.

However, this is not the every Americans thread. This is a thread about Obama, is it not? Should every opinion offered here be then subject to how it relates to the rest of Americans who do not wish to be President?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I put my family before others and I will not fault someone else for doing so. Second, donating money is not the only way to make charitable contributions.

These are good points, and would cause me to rethink my opinion a bit. I do not pretend to know what his obligations were (although it is difficult for me to imagine that 300K annually during 00-04 didn't adequately cover them), and time is also certainly a donation that is no small gesture.

[BarTopDancer]

I think this constant controversy over this minister is the Hillary camp getting desperate. I don't think her desperation will help gain her any momentum either.

SL said it best too.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I think this constant controversy over this minister is the Hillary camp getting desperate.

I disagree. I think it is entirely being fueled by the right-wing who realizes all too well that Hillary is the only one of the two that they have any chance of beating. It is imperative that they do everything in their power to try and destroy him before a decision is made. And the mock outrage over this pastor, who as far as I'm aware, isn't running for any public office, is getting pretty tiring. I agree that there is plenty of desperation happening, but I don't think the source is Hillary.

[scaeagles]

Mock outrage? Perhaps.

Obama's pastor has said very controversial things. This much is true. Was the outrage over Trent Lott complimenting....whomever it was (drawing a blank, though I should certianly know who) also manufactured? I think so.

If McCain went to a church that spoke of Arabs or African Americans in the same way the Wright has spoken about Jews and Italians, would that be acceptable of would it be an issue?

And I see no problem with the right wing trying to influence the dems electoral process. I thought open primaries were a good thing? (I don't, really, but many who do find this whole thing to be outrageous.)

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I disagree. I think it is entirely being fueled by the right-wing who realizes all too well that Hillary is the only one of the two that they have any chance of beating.

I'll be the fence-sitter: I think it is a bit of both.

[Strangler Lewis]

Re Trent Lott: I assume you mean his suggestion that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, the country could have avoided a lot of problems.

I don't know what Wright said about Jews and Italians. I think most of the discussion has focused on what he said about America. As far as John McCain's church goes, since he apparently now goes to a baptist church, I'm guessing they have a few things to say about gays. In general, my expectations about what is said in houses of worship is pretty low.

Before switching affiliation to a baptist church, McCain belonged to Bill Clinton's church, the Church of Flagrant Infidelity. Interestingly, when I checked the Wikipedia page to see what church he went to, I could no longer find the discussion of all the cheating he did on his first wife.