Obama's Other Spirtual Mentor

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1207631070.shtml

[i][David Kopel, April 8, 2008 at 3:29am] Trackbacks
Obama’s Other Spiritual Mentor: Rev. Michael Pfleger

Christopher Hitchens’ latest column in Slate states ( Today, the national civil rights pulpit is largely occupied by second-rate shakedown artists. ): “In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger–for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan.”

Pfleger is the Pastor at St. Sabina’s Catholic Church ( http://www.saintsabina.org/ ), on the South Side of Chicago. So I searched Westlaw’s ALLNEWS database for “Obama and Pfleger.”

According to the April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article cited by Hitchens:

[quote]Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn--Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

"I always have felt in him this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you've got to face God," Pfleger says of Obama. "Faith is key to his life, no question about it. [It is] central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father.... I don't think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is." [/quote]

As Hitchens wrote, Rev. Pfleger is indeed an admirer of “Minister Farrakhan.” Ambushed by a Bill O’Reilly camera crew, Pfleger stated: “He has–first of all, he has not called Judaism a gutter religion of blood suckers. That is not what he has said because I have heard that talk. I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He’s a friend of mine.” (The O’Reilly Factor, Apr. 3, 2008.) Farrakhan spoke at St. Sabina’s on May 25, 2007. (Chicago Sun Times, May 10, 2007.)

Like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was recently an invited speaker at Rev. Pfleger’s church, Rev. Pfleger believes that “racism is still America’s greatest addiction.” (Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 17, 2004.)

In September 2007 in Iowa, Plfeger participated in forums on the role of spirituality in politics, which the Obama campaign had organized. (US Federal News, Oct. 1 & 14, 2007; Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 12, 2007). The Obama campaign touted Pfleger’s endorsement, listing him as one of about a dozen prominent ministers who supported Obama. (Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), May 8, 2007.)

As a state legislator, Obama obtained $225,000 in grants for St. Sabina. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2007.)

Rev. Pfleger was a prominent early endorser of Obama’s successful 2004 Senate campaign, as well as his unsuccessful 2000 challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.

Rev. Pfleger’s church has taken some admirable stands against the degradation of American culture, such as speaking out against abusive rap music ( http://www.saintsabina.org/action/STOP-RAPPER-NAS-nword.pdf ), and hosting a speaker who exposed the anti-Catholic compilation of lies in “The DaVinci Code.” (Chicago Defender, May 15, 2006.) St. Sabina also organized a rally against the genocide in Darfur. (Chicago Sun Times, May 19, 2005.) Rev. Pfleger appeared at a press conference to support state legislator Obama’s bill requiring the police to keep statistics on the race of motorists who were stopped by the police, so as to deter racial profiling. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 20, 2001.)

Rev. Pfleger also appeared at a press conference announcing State Senator Obama’s proposal to outlaw the sale of bidi cigarettes–a type of high-nicotine hand-rolled cigarette which is made in India. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 5, 2000.)

Rev. Pfleger does not respect the property rights of persons who sell products he does not like. He “is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards.” (Crain’s Chicago Business, Dec. 20, 2004.)

The Westlaw database does not indicate that Sen. Obama has participated in the project which has gained Rev. Pfleger notoriety among Bill of Rights advocates: his persecution of Chuck’s Gun Shop ( http://chucksgunshop.net/index.html ). Since all firearms stores have been driven out of Chicago, the closest firearms store to Chicago is Chuck’s Gun Shop, in Riverdale, a short distance south of Chicago. Pursuant to Illinois law, Chuck’s only sells guns to customers who have already obtained a Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check. The employees of Chuck’s Gun Shop have also voluntarily undertaken the “Don’t lie for the other guy” training program sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help gun store employees detect straw purchases (purchases by legal buyers conducted on behalf of prohibited persons).

Yet the Reverends Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson have been organized large crowds to repeatedly picket Chuck’s Gun Shop. On June 23, 2007, Revs. Jackson and Pfleger were arrested for criminally obstructing the entrance to the store. The charges were eventually dropped, just as Governor George Wallace never was criminally punished for standing in a doorway to obstruct the exercise of constitutional rights ( Wallace in the Schoolhouse Door : NPR ). (The comparison is a little unfair, since Wallace eventually stood aside, whereas Jackson and Pfleger had to be physically removed by the police.)

In another demonstration at Chuck’s Gun Shop, owned by John Riggio, Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: “We’re going to find you and snuff you out…Like a rat you’re going to hide. But like a rat, we’re going to catch you and pull you out…We’re going to snuff out John Riggio.” Rev. Pfleger also promised: “We’re going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We’re coming for you because we’re not going to sit idly.”

Rev. Pfleger later denied that his words had been meant to invoke violence, or that he had known that “snuff out” means to “kill.” Rather, the determination to “snuff out” Riggio was a determination to find out his home address, which was not publically available.

According to Roget’s Thesaurus, “snuff out” ( SNUFF OUT Synonyms: 20 Synonyms & Antonyms for SNUFF OUT | Thesaurus.com ) means “kill” and is similar to the following words: “blow away, bump off, chill, dispatch, dispose of, do away with, do in, dust, grease, hit, ice, knock off, murder, off, rub out, stretch out, waste, wax, whack, zap.” In response to Rev. Pfleger’s words, Cardinal Francis George, of the Archdiocese of Chicago, stated: “Publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest.” (Chicago Sun Times, June 8, 2007.)

Rev. Pfleger proclaimed that the protests would continue (and that he would refuse to pay a fee imposed by a city ordinance to pay for the police services necessitated by the picketing) until the Riverdale city council decides to eliminate all gun stores, and “vote Riverdale gun-free.” Or as Rev. Pfleger’s picketers chanted, “Vote Riverdale gun dry.” (Chicago Defender, Oct. 29, 2007).

Every American voter will have to decide how much importance, if any, to give to Sen. Obama’s association with Rev. Pfleger. In my own view, I give greater attention to a religious figure who is a long-standing personal advisor to a candidate than to a religious figure who is merely one of thousands of political allies whom the candidate seeks out during a campaign. In deciding how to vote, I ignore purely theological issues (e.g., whether the Mitt Romney’s LDS view of the afterlife is more plausible or less plausible than John Kerry’s Roman Catholic view), but I consider the extent to which the candidate’s religious philosophy may (like any other part of the candidate’s worldview) influence his or her public policy decisions. In my view, it is relevant that a candidate has chosen spiritual mentors who are bigots or who are hostile to constitutional rights. Senator Obama’s close relationship with Rev. Pfleger makes me less confident that a President Obama would be a strong defender of the entire Bill of Rights and of civic tolerance. [/i]

To quote Orion, what about his tailor?

[quote]lixy wrote:
To quote Orion, what about his tailor?[/quote]

Does he claim his tailor is a mentor?

[quote]lixy wrote:
To quote Orion, what about his tailor?[/quote]

To quote Dave Kopel, from the end of the above:

Every American voter will have to decide how much importance, if any, to give to Sen. Obama’s association with Rev. Pfleger. In my own view, I give greater attention to a religious figure who is a long-standing personal advisor to a candidate than to a religious figure who is merely one of thousands of political allies whom the candidate seeks out during a campaign. In deciding how to vote, I ignore purely theological issues (e.g., whether the Mitt Romney’s LDS view of the afterlife is more plausible or less plausible than John Kerry’s Roman Catholic view), but I consider the extent to which the candidate’s religious philosophy may (like any other part of the candidate’s worldview) influence his or her public policy decisions. In my view, it is relevant that a candidate has chosen spiritual mentors who are bigots or who are hostile to constitutional rights. Senator Obama’s close relationship with Rev. Pfleger makes me less confident that a President Obama would be a strong defender of the entire Bill of Rights and of civic tolerance.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
To quote Orion, what about his tailor?

Does he claim his tailor is a mentor?[/quote]

I’ve had school janitors (the one in high school especially) give me guidance. I sure as hell hope no one holds me accountable for any other beliefs the man may have had…so he does have a point. Most of us get guidance (or find mentors) in many different types of people. That doesn’t mean we agree with their every philosophy in life, does it?

I still don’t get why anyone is concerned about what everyone says BUT the words that come out of Obama’a own mouth.

I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.[/quote]

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.[/quote]

“Adolf, get away from those fuckers in the Brown shirts! Someone may apply the old adage ‘Birds of a feather’…”

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.

“Adolf, get away from those fuckers in the Brown shirts! Someone may apply the old adage ‘Birds of a feather’…”

[/quote]

I usually avoid your posts whenever possible, but…

I consider no man a true friend unless he seen me drunk and/or I feel I can pass out in front of them and wind up safely at home afterwards with my wallet intact. I do not consider preachers I’ve had to be “true friends” even if I may have discussed personal issues with them.

I would be way more concerned about close personal ties the man has than accquaintances. For most of us, our preacher is an ACCQUAINTANCE, not a close personal friend regardless of what gets quoted in newspapers.

It seems like many of you are reaching…and I doubt anyone is fooled by it BUT the people who had already made up their minds to NOT vote for him anyway.

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.[/quote]

Of course Obama isn’t going to highlight what he agrees with Farrakhan, etc.

To your question - Obama’s campaign is not about Experience or Accomplishments. Obama is asking you to vote for him based on his Judgment and Character, which he claims is superior to his opponents.

So, any information that sheds light on his Judgment and Character are important and fair game. Obama has wanted voters to essentially take him on faith that he has superior Judgment and Character and would prefer not to put all the information on the table for an accounting.

We always hear about “stupid voters” around election time - but when voters decide to do some homework of their own outside of what a campaign is serving up, they are being what should be a good thing - interested, skeptical voters not taking a politician’s word for it and educating themselves on the issues.

Judgment and Character are major issues for Obama - hell, they are the only ones, as that is all he is advertising. To look into it is to be an educated voter. Obama’s supporters don’t want such a reckoning because, well, that might force them to actually have an intelligent conversation on relevant political issues rather than drink plentifully from the fountain of vapid platitudes. Obama followers ain’t so good at “substance”, so they complain when picky voters actually present a fuller picture of their candidate.

And, finally, since Obama has so little experience, especially in the executive space, who he surrounds himself with becomes especially important. As such, his associations - particularly the relationships that are long-term and deep - are relevant to understanding what kind of administration the vague Obama is interested in. Very, very important.

Obama has put Judgment and Character front and center - and now must deal with any and all questions surrounding what he has advertised as his strengths, just as Hillary and McCain have had to.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

Of course Obama isn’t going to highlight what he agrees with Farrakhan, etc.

To your question - Obama’s campaign is not about Experience or Accomplishments. Obama is asking you to vote for him based on his Judgment and Character, which he claims is superior to his opponents.

So, any information that sheds light on his Judgment and Character are important and fair game. Obama has wanted voters to essentially take him on faith that he has superior Judgment and Character and would prefer not to put all the information on the table for an accounting.

We always hear about “stupid voters” around election time - but when voters decide to do some homework of their own outside of what a campaign is serving up, they are being what should be a good thing - interested, skeptical voters not taking a politician’s word for it and educating themselves on the issues.

Judgment and Character are major issues for Obama - hell, they are the only ones, as that is all he is advertising. To look into it is to be an educated voter. Obama’s supporters don’t want such a reckoning because, well, that might force them to actually have an intelligent conversation on relevant political issues rather than drink plentifully from the fountain of vapid platitudes. Obama followers ain’t so good at “substance”, so they complain when picky voters actually present a fuller picture of their candidate.

And, finally, since Obama has so little experience, especially in the executive space, who he surrounds himself with becomes especially important. As such, his associations - particularly the relationships that are long-term and deep - are relevant to understanding what kind of administration the vague Obama is interested in. Very, very important.

Obama has put Judgment and Character front and center - and now must deal with any and all questions surrounding what he has advertised as his strengths, just as Hillary and McCain have had to.[/quote]

Well pardon me for being naive but doesn’t that just highlight how stupid these voters are? All of these candidates run on a false pretense of character. Sure maybe Obama has the mindless “change” zombie thing working for him but really are Americans so stupid that they can see that politicians (especially these frontrunners) have no character and poor judgement based on their very voting reoords

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
storey420 wrote:

Of course Obama isn’t going to highlight what he agrees with Farrakhan, etc.

To your question - Obama’s campaign is not about Experience or Accomplishments. Obama is asking you to vote for him based on his Judgment and Character, which he claims is superior to his opponents.

So, any information that sheds light on his Judgment and Character are important and fair game. Obama has wanted voters to essentially take him on faith that he has superior Judgment and Character and would prefer not to put all the information on the table for an accounting.

We always hear about “stupid voters” around election time - but when voters decide to do some homework of their own outside of what a campaign is serving up, they are being what should be a good thing - interested, skeptical voters not taking a politician’s word for it and educating themselves on the issues.

Judgment and Character are major issues for Obama - hell, they are the only ones, as that is all he is advertising. To look into it is to be an educated voter. Obama’s supporters don’t want such a reckoning because, well, that might force them to actually have an intelligent conversation on relevant political issues rather than drink plentifully from the fountain of vapid platitudes. Obama followers ain’t so good at “substance”, so they complain when picky voters actually present a fuller picture of their candidate.

And, finally, since Obama has so little experience, especially in the executive space, who he surrounds himself with becomes especially important. As such, his associations - particularly the relationships that are long-term and deep - are relevant to understanding what kind of administration the vague Obama is interested in. Very, very important.

Obama has put Judgment and Character front and center - and now must deal with any and all questions surrounding what he has advertised as his strengths, just as Hillary and McCain have had to.[/quote]

Well pardon me for being naive but doesn’t that just highlight how stupid these voters are? All of these candidates run on a false pretense of character. Sure maybe Obama has the mindless “change” zombie thing working for him but really are Americans so stupid that they can see that politicians (especially these frontrunners) have no character and poor judgement based on their very voting reoords

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.

“Adolf, get away from those fuckers in the Brown shirts! Someone may apply the old adage ‘Birds of a feather’…”

I usually avoid your posts whenever possible, but…

I consider no man a true friend unless he seen me drunk and/or I feel I can pass out in front of them and wind up safely at home afterwards with my wallet intact. I do not consider preachers I’ve had to be “true friends” even if I may have discussed personal issues with them.

[/quote]

That effectively means you cannot be friends with people under 200lbs because otherwise they will not be able to haul your ass back home.

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.

“Adolf, get away from those fuckers in the Brown shirts! Someone may apply the old adage ‘Birds of a feather’…”

I usually avoid your posts whenever possible, but…

I consider no man a true friend unless he seen me drunk and/or I feel I can pass out in front of them and wind up safely at home afterwards with my wallet intact. I do not consider preachers I’ve had to be “true friends” even if I may have discussed personal issues with them.

That effectively means you cannot be friends with people under 200lbs because otherwise they will not be able to haul your ass back home.

[/quote]

LOL!

Funny, now that you mention it, most of my frat brothers are over 200lbs.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I am confused, is there anywhere where Obama has said he agrees with or condones the nonsense coming from Farrakhan? If not then how many of these stupid ass forum posts are there going to be where somw random associate is drug up to somehow show the candidate is not worthy. NONE of the candidates leading the pack are worthy. They all suck and each has different reasons why. I think if we started a list of shady associates of Obama, Clinton and McCain it would take several pages.

It screams, “we can’t find shit else to harp on so we go digging for every acquaintance the man ever had just to find some dirt on him”.

“Adolf, get away from those fuckers in the Brown shirts! Someone may apply the old adage ‘Birds of a feather’…”

I usually avoid your posts whenever possible, but…

I consider no man a true friend unless he seen me drunk and/or I feel I can pass out in front of them and wind up safely at home afterwards with my wallet intact. I do not consider preachers I’ve had to be “true friends” even if I may have discussed personal issues with them.

That effectively means you cannot be friends with people under 200lbs because otherwise they will not be able to haul your ass back home.

LOL!

Funny, now that you mention it, most of my frat brothers are over 200lbs. [/quote]

It is just like the story of the athlete who grew stronger buy carrying a calf that grew bigger and bigger.

The owe half their development to carrying you home as you became heavier each year.

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Well pardon me for being naive but doesn’t that just highlight how stupid these voters are? All of these candidates run on a false pretense of character. Sure maybe Obama has the mindless “change” zombie thing working for him but really are Americans so stupid that they can see that politicians (especially these frontrunners) have no character and poor judgement based on their very voting reoords[/quote]

Well, I have no idea if you are being naive, but it sounds more like you are just gassing off because you don’t like the remaining crop of candidates. That is fine, but it doesn’t speak to the issue of whether Obama deserves scrutiny over his relationships and issues directly related to his campaign - which you raised.

If it is true that “all of these candidates run on a false pretense of character”, that hurts Obama the most, because he is the candidate campaigning that he is the answer to such low-grade politics.

But your paragraph is borderline incoherent - you are complaining that American voters are stupid because they can see that the candidates are no good?

I read a Column by Thomas Sowell earlier today called ‘Random Thoughts’. Several of his 'thoughts are applicable to this thread. Here are a few:

“Nothing is more fraudulent than calls for a “dialogue on race.” Those who issue such calls are usually quick to cry “racism” at any frank criticism. They are almost invariably seeking a monologue on race, to which others are supposed to listen.”

“The same people who have gone ballistic when some prominent figure is found to belong to some all-male social club are full of excuses for why Barack Obama remained a member of a racist and anti-American church for 20 years.”

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:

“Nothing is more fraudulent than calls for a “dialogue on race.” Those who issue such calls are usually quick to cry “racism” at any frank criticism.”[/quote]

Yep.

A dialogue might actually elicit criticism from the other speaker, and such advocates of a race discussion have no interest in criticism - that requires a defense of ideas, and there is nothing worse than actually having to defend your ideas. That is, well, hard work.

Better to pretend you have all the answers and slander everyone who challenges you as a racist until proven otherwise.

Yes - as an exercise, what if McCain belonged to a private golf club that refused to admit black people, even though it was one of the best golf courses in Arizona, i.e., there was otherwise a good reason to belong to the golf club?

All remarks about “context” would be quickly jettisoned in favor of an unqualified denunciation of McCain. And, might I add…rightfully so.

Good stuff from Sowell, as usual.