The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

[JohnKSmith]

With the media carefully pretending not to notice, Barack Obama's choice to hold a memorial service December 23 for his late grandmother Madelyn "Toot" Dunham at Honolulu's First Unitarian Church underlines one part of the story of Barack Obama's leftist religious upbringing.

What is First Unitarian Church? Their website describes counter-recruitment efforts intended for "deconstructing the myth" ... "used in propaganda for the military (as with ads for Marine recruitment)."

Another set of clues come from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin February 8, 2003 description of First Unitarian's 2003 golden anniversary celebration -- complete with "Liberal Religion for 50 Years" T-shirts.

Link to article

[matapule]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

I am UU member. You got beef? This from our website:

"Welcome to welcoming people
The Liberal Religion Community in Hawaii is quite diverse. We have UU's, Buddhists, liberal christians, jews, humanists, vegetarians, atheists, agnostics and more. We are an open and diverse community which seeks to create and nurture a supportive environment that empowers individuals to explore spiritual growth, experience intellectual stimulation and seek justice for all people through principled action. Our rules are simple:

• 1) Do no harm.
• 2) Be honest.
• 3) Keep it simple.

Our Church Vision is to be a self-sustaining, growing, vibrant and inclusive community serving as a beacon of religious freedom and expression.

Our Church mission is to celebrate diversity within our beloved community dedicated to spiritual exploration, intellectual stimulation, social justice and principled action."

You got beef wi'dat?

Who said Obama selected UU Church for Tutu's ceremony? Maybe that was Tutu's last request.

Moderator you need to call a fumigator, we got a cockaroach infestation on this Forum.

[JohnKSmith]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

"I am a UU member. Got a beef with that?"

Besides the arrogant liberal intolerance that you illustrate perfectly?

No.

I think that a UU church would be a perfectly logical choice for Obama now that he has been forced to abandon the church of "God d*** America".

From the article:

"A memory that Jim Myers shared at the Wednesday reunion was the brush with history when the church offered ‘sanctuary' to infamous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, her mother and son. It was 1966, and ‘she was the most hated woman in the United States,' he said. O'Hair was vilified by religious groups after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld her challenge against prayer in public schools. ‘We put her upstairs for a while,' Myers said. ‘There wasn't really an uproar in Hawaii, probably because of the tolerant situation here.'

"Later in the 1960s, ‘we gave sanctuary to Vietnam deserters...."

Tolerant situation here?!?

[matapule]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Besides the arrogant liberal intolerance that you illustrate perfectly?

In psychology, this is called "projection."

I think that a UU church would be a perfectly logical choice for Obama now that he has been forced to abandon the church of "God d*** America".

Get out the Warfarin! This not cacaroach, this is sewer rat infestation! Just hold your nose, stink will dissipate soon.

YES WE CAN!

[JohnKSmith]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Besides the arrogant liberal intolerance that you illustrate perfectly?
In psychology, this is called "projection."

And yet you continue to refer to me as "cockroach", and "sewer rat" and demand extermination.

Look in the mirror, son.

[scrivener]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Matapule, calm down. Geez. I am not a huge fan of the UU church, but you should welcome this discussion. Don't you see it as a chance to clear up what some people might be confused about? Whether or not this is a conversation you want to be engaged in, calling for a moderator to get rid of the original poster is out of line. I didn't read anything in the original post that was judgmental or condemning. Your first response, in fact, was much more hostile and (as JohnKSmith pointed out) intolerant.

We're talking about the man who's going to be the President of the United States. Just about everything's fair game for conversation now, and though I agree with YOU that holding a funeral at that church probably means nothing significant about the President-elect, I find it puzzling that you're so quick to put up your dukes.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Jesus was a liberal. Jesus was a community organizer. And JohnKSmith is Ed Case.


Might First Unitarian have been Toot's church?

[TuNnL]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

And JohnKSmith is Ed Case.

All kidding aside, #1 Ed Case is known to attend the same church as his wife, the former Audrey Nakamura, daughter of an Episcopalian minister. #2 Ed Case, a card-carrying democrat, (despite being a Cayetano-style maverick) would never insult the President-elect through innuendo the way “JohnKSmith” is doing at the moment.

[Composite 2992]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

The election is over. Why the need to stir up issues which may be misleading and provocative?

As Obama himself said during his election night speech, "enough!"

He's been elected president. Like it or not, he's the one who will be in charge. Support the man. Our approval rating in the world is gradually improving. Maybe it'll give terrorists a few reasons to NOT attack us.

Besides, why should someone's religious belief make a difference? Isn't this the United States of America where we are all guaranteed religious freedom? What are people afraid of?

As far as I know, it seems that after Jesus established his group of followers, an ever-increasing variety of churches have spent the last 21 centuries distorting Christ's concept of peace and harmony. A disgruntled group will split off from an established church and do its own thing. Sometimes they'll cross entire oceans to get away from one another.

Occasionally entire cultures get wiped out in the name of religion. Innocent people are tortured and murdered to drive out evil spirits.

Sure doesn't sound like peace and harmony to me.

And now some of these religions, who happen to believe in the same God, hate each other so intensely that they have waged bloody skirmishes upon each other for more than 1,000 years.

If there is a God, he must be rolling his eyes, shaking his almighty head, and asking, "Jesus, can you believe the things these guys are doing?!"

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Might First Unitarian have been Toot's church?

More on this --- while she and her husband lived in Mercer Island, WA (a suburb east of Seattle), they attended Bellevue's East Shore Unitarian Church. So, Mr. Smith, it may have simply been a desire to honor his beloved grandmother's wishes, his attending a memorial service at First Unitarian in Honolulu. Have you an issue with that?

[matapule]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

I am not a huge fan of the UU church, but you should welcome this discussion. Don't you see it as a chance to clear up what some people might be confused about?

What are people confused about?

I didn't read anything in the original post that was judgmental or condemning. Your first response, in fact, was much more hostile and (as JohnKSmith pointed out) intolerant.

Tolerance is not absolute. I do not tolerate people smoking in my house. I do not tolerate killing animals for fun. I do not tolerate rascist, white supemacist propaganda.

JohnKSmith failed to mention that his post was a verbatim, regurgitation of the American Thinker website. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about American Thinker:

The American Thinker is a daily conservativewebsite dealing with Americanpolitics, national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy.[1] The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show, and the site has been mentioned in leading newspapers including Le Monde,[2] The Guardian, [3] and the New York Times.
Writing in The Nation about what he describes as "a smear campaign" against Barack Obama, Ari Berman says "At the fulcrum of this effort is a little-known blogger from Northbrook, Illinois, named Ed Lasky, whose articles on AmericanThinker.com have done more than anything to give the smear campaign an air of respectability."

Others have called American Thinker the front for a neo-nazi, white supremacist group. Whether that is true, I don't know. However some white sumpremacist websites calling for Obama's assassination have linked to the American Thinker website as JohnKSmith has done. The American Thinker is supporting a movement on their website for a letter writing campaign to Congress to strip the Presidency from Obama on the basis that he is not an American citizen.

The Ku Klux Klan is determined to reinvent itself as a respectable orgainization. It is doing this by aligning with the far right wing of the republican party to gain an air of respectability. They are determined to inflitrate the media with their very subtle message. Internet Fora are no exception. Once a rascist white supremacist group, always a rascist white supremacist group.

So now American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts) implies that Obama has some ulterior motive for attending a service for his grandmother in the Church she attended. Freedom of Religion is a basic tenant of the Bill of Rights. American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts) wants to tear down the very foundation on which our nation was founded. If you want to get sick to your stomach, read the garbage on their website.

There have been several posts on HT in the last month that were very sinister with regards to the President elect (you know who you are). We must always be alert to threats to our freedoms and the basis of our democratic society no matter how subtle.

I would rather be banned from HT than tolerate fascist (or communist) propaganda. I am not going to allow the rhetoric by American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 post, 1st post on 12/25/08) to go unchallenged!

I am discouraged that you, Scrivener, found nothing "judgemental or condeming" in American thinker's post. You are so ready to believe the lies.

We're talking about the man who's going to be the President of the United States. Just about everything's fair game for conversation now,

Say whatever you like about Obama, just get your facts straight. The post by American Thinker implied that Obama selected the UU Church for his tutu's ceremony. That is not true!

and though I agree with YOU that holding a funeral at that church probably means nothing significant about the President-elect,

PROBABLY?! PROBABLY?! What in hades are you talking about? He just attended a memorial service in the Church his Tutu attended. You think he shouldn't have gone?

I find it puzzling that you're so quick to put up your dukes.

I will always challenge anyone, including American Thinker, who through whatever insideous means attempts to inflitrate the peaceful nature of my lifestyle. We must all be vigilant to assaults from organizations like American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts). So, if American Thinker wishes to continue posting their propaganda on this site, I am going to expose them for what they are - a threat to our freedoms.

[scrivener]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

What are people confused about?

Clearly, if JohnKSmith is wrong about Unitarian Universalist beliefs, he's confused, right? And anyone who might be misled by the misleading statements would be confused. You could have taken the moment to clarify whatever it was JohnKSmith had wrong.

I do not tolerate racist, white supremacist propaganda.

I didn't see anything racist or white-supremacist in the original post, if that's what you're getting at. If you're just using racism as an example of something intolerable, well, okay. I'd suggest that true tolerance must make room for the tolerance of the intolerant, but that's another issue (discussed here on HT before) we can save for another time.

JohnKSmith failed to mention that his post was a verbatim, regurgitation of the American Thinker website. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about American Thinker:

Well heck. You failed to mention it too, else maybe I'd have understood where your initial response was coming from.

Others have called American Thinker the front for a neo-nazi, white supremacist group. Whether that is true, I don't know. However some white sumpremacist websites calling for Obama's assassination have linked to the American Thinker website as JohnKSmith has done.

Okay, but I know that you know that this is a flimsy argument. White supremacists cite the Bible as the basis for their beliefs; it doesn't make the Bible a white supremacist document.

The American Thinker is supporting a movement on their website for a letter writing campaign to Congress to strip the Presidency from Obama on the basis that he is not an American citizen.

The Ku Klux Klan is determined to reinvent itself as a respectable orgainization. It is doing this by aligning with the far right wing of the republican party to gain an air of respectability. They are determined to inflitrate the media with their very subtle message. Internet Fora are no exception. Once a rascist white supremacist group, always a rascist white supremacist group.

I still don't get where this is coming from. How is this related to the topic at hand?

So now American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts) implies that Obama has some ulterior motive for attending a service for his grandmother in the Church she attended. Freedom of Religion is a basic tenant of the Bill of Rights. American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts) wants to tear down the very foundation on which our nation was founded. If you want to get sick to your stomach, read the garbage on their website.

I don't want you to think I agree with anything JohnKSmith has written. I'd never heard of him or her until reading this post. But how are you so sure that the person behind the handle and the person behind the American Thinker are the same person?

There have been several posts on HT in the last month that were very sinister with regards to the President elect (you know who you are). We must always be alert to threats to our freedoms and the basis of our democratic society no matter how subtle.

Including limiting their freedom to express their differing opinions?

I would rather be banned from HT than tolerate fascist (or communist) propaganda. I am not going to allow the rhetoric by American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 post, 1st post on 12/25/08) to go unchallenged

I never suggested that you should let it go unchallenged, but you bypassed any discussion of the topic and went right to "can a moderator please get rid of this guy?" Challenge it? By all means! I'd love to hear it. You've demonstrated on several occasions the ability to hold your own in a reasoned discussion, but this wasn't one of those occasions. You went right for "put up your dukes!" All I suggested in my first response is that you got awfully defensive without what I thought was a good reason. Now that I understand a little more where you're coming from, your response makes a little more sense to me, but it still seems a bit abrupt.

I am discouraged that you, Scrivener, found nothing "judgmental or condemning" in American thinker's post. You are so ready to believe the lies.

Whoa, whoa. Who said I was ready to believe anything, including the stuff you quoted? Sansei is forever citing ridiculous beliefs and opinions, but if I stick up for his right to post it, does that mean I'm prepared to believe that the proper course of action in dealing with visiting Seventh-Day Adventists is to hide behind the couch, or that all Hawaii broadcast journalists should stop using Hawaiian words?

Say whatever you like about Obama, just get your facts straight. The post by American Thinker implied that Obama selected the UU Church for his tutu's ceremony. That is not true!

Well now, do you think people should be allowed to say whatever they like, or do you think they should only say things that YOU happen to think are true? Your take on what JohnKSmith posted is a reasonable interpretation, but my interpretation was that since Obama was raised by this woman, it is possible that he holds with Unitarian Universalist thought, which to some people (not me) is relevant to whether or not he can do the job. I would like to repeat that I never agreed with anything the original poster wrote; my response has more to do with what seemed a hair-trigger sensitivity in what seemed to me an ignorant but innocuous question. How is JohnKSmith's ignorance less tolerable than Sansei's?

PROBABLY?! PROBABLY?! What in hades are you talking about? He just attended a memorial service in the Church his Tutu attended. You think he shouldn't have gone?

Geez. When did I suggest even for a second that he shouldn't have gone? I wrote, "I agree with YOU that holding a funeral at that church probably means nothing significant about the President-elect." Probably means there's greater than a 50% chance that it means nothing significant, but now I take it back: It probably means he loved and respected his grandmother, and that's certainly significant.

I will always challenge anyone, including American Thinker, who through whatever insideous means attempts to inflitrate the peaceful nature of my lifestyle.

Then may I gently suggest you hit the ignore button? Because there has been very little I'd call "peaceful" about either of your two posts. If you simply never read anything he writes, won't that put you more at peace?

[matapule]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Clearly, if JohnKSmith is wrong about Unitarian Universalist beliefs, he's confused, right? And anyone who might be misled by the misleading statements would be confused. You could have taken the moment to clarify whatever it was JohnKSmith had wrong.

I did!, in my first post on this thread. It's still there. You didn't read it?

I didn't see anything racist or white-supremacist in the original post, if that's what you're getting at.

Because you didn't read the link provided and perform your due diligence investigating that website. You have been duped by American Thinker (aka JohnKSmith - 4 posts). What I'm trying to warn you about.

Including limiting their freedom to express their differing opinions?

He can say whatever he wants, I'm just going to expose him for what he is.

but you bypassed any discussion of the topic and went right to "can a moderator please get rid of this guy?"

There you go...quoting me for something I did not say. What I said was, "Moderator you need to call a fumigator, we got a cockaroach infestation on this Forum." If you are going to quote me, quote me accurately.

Challenge it? By all means! I'd love to hear it.

I already did. I guess you read my posts selectively.

Well now, do you think people should be allowed to say whatever they like, or do you think they should only say things that YOU happen to think are true?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but people can say whatever they want, they just better be prepared to defend what they say.

but my interpretation was that since Obama was raised by this woman, it is possible that he holds with Unitarian Universalist thought, which to some people (not me) is relevant to whether or not he can do the job.

What are you talking about? Religious belief should be tolerated as some sort of lithmus test to becomme President by anyone (not you)?

How is JohnKSmith's ignorance less tolerable than Sansei's?

JohnKSmith's verbatim quoting of a right wing website with questionable affiliations, without proper citation.

Probably means there's greater than a 50% chance that it means nothing significant, but now I take it back: It probably means he loved and respected his grandmother, and that's certainly significant.

What is with you and the PROBABLY word? Repeat after me: "Barack Obama honored his grandmother at the Unitarian Universalist Church because he loved and respected her." That is a quality we would want to see in any President.

may I gently suggest you hit the ignore button? If you simply never read anything he writes, won't that put you more at peace?

That's exactly what the neocons are wanting. If they tell enough lies people will start letting them go unchallenged and then they become the truth.

Scriv, I guess you are going to have to put me on ignore, because I will not give up.

[timkona]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Mata, may I ask a question?

If you disapprove of white supremacist style racism, are there any other types of racism that you approve of? Because we have lots of racism here in Hawaii by folks who call themselves Hawaiians. And we have lots of racism in some inner city neighborhoods by folks known as African-Americans.

So I'm curious if you single out certain kinds of racism, while tacitly approving other types.

(careful Mata, this is an obvious trap)

And if Ol'Bammy wants to attend a church, or smoke a ciggy, or take his shirt off, or whatever, I think everybody should just lay off the guy for a while.

[JohnKSmith]

Re: The Unitarian Church and Obama's Religious Upbringing

Well now I've gone from "cockroach" to "sewer rat" to "white supremacist". I'd rather stick with "Ed Case" if you don't mind...

I think the point of the AT article is tht Madelyn Dunham was likely a lifelong UU member (but this is not proven). Obama has hidden this calling his grandparents "non-practicing Methodists and Baptists" (which is why it is not so easily proven). Since 4 other Pres have been Unitarians it is not necessarily a political liability to be UU. So the question is what was Barry O hiding?

Several of you point to the author's use of the phrase "Obama's choice". Yes it is likely that this was the wish of the deceased, but it was Obama's choice to honor that wish and also his choice to not more fully explain whether it was / or was not her choice. All of this is in line with the general secrecy Obama is maintaining around his life story (in spite of having written two books about himself). The contradiction is odd because the root info is present in Obama's own books--but is seemingly off-limits for the popular press.

Maybe Barry doesn't want anybody to know that Toot went to church with anybody like Matapule? It seems UU has changed a lot since the last UU Pres -- Robert Taft.

The AT article (quoting the Star-Bulletin) certainly paints picture of people whose leftism is an article of religious faith--and thus use terms like "right wing" as other religions would use "heretic" or "blasphemer"--just as Matapule does. Is the Star-Bulletin a "right-wing" source?

(Next thing they will be telling us that it is unpatriotic to question Obama--Where have I heard that before?)

Matapule says he is UU. (perhaps a member of First Unitarian Church?) So it seems like Matpule's fear-driven rants have proven the author's case! Mahalo Matapule! Keep up the good work!

And just say "no" to theocracy! And say "no" to the politics of fear!

Gee isn't that what they said about the evil Bush?

Smash the dominant paradigm!

Now I'm off to catch some dogs....