In a Chicago church indeed, however, not that Chicago church. It was at the Apostolic Church of God, not Trinity United Church of Christ, home of the famed Rev. Wright.
The video of Obama’s remarks:
(2 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
|
Weekly Poll:  Loading ...
|
Conservative Gal's Commentary
 Ladies In Politics |
Michael's Commentary
 The Professor's Corner |
| Conservative Gal's Latest: |
Michael's Latest: |
Copyright © 2008 You Decide 2008
Visionary theme by Justin Tadlock
|
Powered by
WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS)  |
 This site requires a modern browser and at least 1024x768 screen resolution to display properly |
|
Subscribe by RSS
His sentiments about the vital importance of a traditional family structure are longstanding republican ideals not shared by the far left. That he quotes some general statistics in support of the facts about the negative effects of a broken family is hopefully a sign reality is finally making a comeback.
Actually, no, this idea from the right that the left are actively *against* “traditional” families is one of the damaging myths of the day. It’s not actually true.
What is true, is that the “left” are able to countenance that the traditional family structure isn’t always *available*, and for any of a thousand reasons, can break down, and has the heart not to victimise the people involved.
That’s all; it’s just about the ability to accept and deal with the complexity of the real world rather than insist upon imposing strict rules on what shapes families *can* be.
Where were the statistics on white american families without a father in the household? And the statistics on the white children’s fates of living in a single family household? Does he know them?
For Rachel
I did not even imply that any group is intentionally working against the traditional family. What I said is that the far left doesn’t hold by its vital importance, for emotionally healthy children, etc. This is true, and there are countless examples you can look up for yourself if you are so inclined.
For Babs
Well, he was speaking in a black church…
bdjnk, exclusively black?
The entire sermon made only passing reference to the black community as was relevant to the vast majority of the audience - what is the issue with that? I skimmed the transcript, roughly 2 sentences out of a very long sermon were specific to the black community - and those were just illustrative statistics. To me, I could take heed of the message fathers in all communities. Babs, I suggest you’re nitpicking and inventing issues.
Well Babs, I really wouldn’t know as I’ve never been, but from their website I would venture a tentative yes.
bdjnk, then that explains it, thanks. Trinity was advertised as more white than black, I assumed this church would be mixed as well. Which would make his statistics a bit, well, lets just say more civil rights oriented than would be appropriate for a mixed audience.
Trinity is a largely black church with some white members. The United Church of Christ, which Trinity is a part of, is a network of churches and is largely made up of white or “mixed” membership.
Babs,
I wouldn’t say neither of those churches are “exclusively” black, but that their populations are mostly black. I would also say the only statement, shown in video Nate posted referencing the black community specifically was the reference that “half of all black children grow up in single parent households.” The rest of the statements incorporated populous statistics.
Also, I don’t think any of what he said constitutes civil rights chatter, but rather speaking to social issues relevant to the audience. Its no different than Bill Richardson talking to a Hispanic audience, Bobby Jindal talking to an Indian audience, or Hillary Clinton talking to a female audience.
Which is why I commented on it. The stats he quoted were very appropriate for a black audience. I questioned that the audience was black, per say. Not making an issue here, just a comment. If I wanted to make an issue of anything he said in his sermon/speech, I would choose this:
“We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception.”
This statement would make it appear that he believes life begins at conception, although we know he does not believe that by his voting record. It was pretty words, though.
Babs, I beg of you please don’t go there (conception).
As for everyone else I personally liked the speech it was addressing a problem of today. All to often we attack the candidates for not standing up and doing and saying something about an issue. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “Attack the problem not my soultion to the problem.” Addressing the problem will cause a movement, it will make people do something about it. So please don’t attack his way of addressing/solving this problem, embrace it because we all know that this is true.
Victor Draine
Babs, I’m pretty sure that Obama does believe that life begins at conception, I think he’s made comments to that effect. I believe his strong pro-choice stance is not contingent on the question of when life begins. I recall he spoke on the subject quite a bit in a forum a while back, it seemed like he had some fairly complex views on the subject.
Babs, I think you’re inferring too much from a simple phrase. It’s certainly understandable, since the abortion issue is rife with jingoism and slogans that have people automatically making the kind of associations you did.
In the context of a speech on Father’s Day, conception is referred to as the first act, or “responsibility”, in fatherhood. It makes sense regardless of whether or not one believes that life begins at conception.
Cheers
Leo, I may very well be. I’ve just finished reading Obama’s statements to Congress over the issue, and have fresh anger over it, quite frankly.
IndiMinded, after all that I just read on the subject from Obama, I sure hope he doesn’t believe life begins at conception. That would lower my opinion of him drastically. But I agree with you, he has very complex and conflicting views on the subject.
And, Victor, no worries. I’m done with the subject.
Life begins just after the point where people feel guilty about killing a baby.