"the use of recording devices of any kind is strictly forbidden in the theater...er...church."yesterday, barack obama found he had another pastor problem: pastor michael pfleger of saint sabina catholic church in chicago. last sunday, in a guest sermon at trinity united church of christ, pfleger mocked and ridiculed senator hillary clinton. nothing subtle about his performance: it was pathetic, and shameful. and it's on youtube!
certainly obama is not responsible for this man's views, or what he says in his sermon. but there is a connection here: pfleger is a long time obama supporter. and until recently, pfleger's endorsement of obama was quoted on the candidate's website.
in march of this year, pfleger was even coming to rev. jeremiah wright's defense, inviting him to to deliver a blessing at saint sabina church, saying, "dr. wright has been shamefully demonized by 30 second sound bites that have tried to re-define him into someone other than who he is." pfleger is now the "victim" of the same 30 second youtube sound bites that "re-defined" wright. oops.
today, in a press conference in milwaukee, john mccain defended hillary clinton, saying that although their views are very different, he has always respected and admired her. the republican nominee standing up for the assumed democratic runner-up. i'm sure it's a position he's happy to be in.
not sure what positions pastor pfleger likes to be in. but he certainly didn't do obama, or the democratic party, any favors.
so the question is this: do we really want to know what's being said in every sermon? the folks listening to pfleger in that youtube video are cheering in support of his views. is it better that we can all watch it? or should this be something at least a little more private? what effect, if any, should / does this have on obama? and why are there no video cameras in john mccain's church?