It's called commitment

I wonder whether folks who sanctimoniously condemn Barack Obama for staying with his church despite disagreeing with a pastor's message have ever been meaningfully involved in a church family. Your church is, or should be, so much more than a single pastor -- it's the people, philosophies, works and programs that make up a combined spiritual home and physical place to be the hands and feet of God.

Sometimes I've had serious issues with a church's people or messages, but I see my church membership like a marriage: You make a vow when you join and stay put to work through problems. If you think a church leader is wrong, you stay to make sure your viewpoint is heard rather than abandon your church for something new and shiny, as if breaking church relationships were as easy as changing the TV channel when you are no longer entertained by the program.

I am impressed with the work that Trinity United Church of Christ did in living out Christ's call to care for our communities, and I admire Sen. Barack Obama's commitment to stay with his church family and work through any difficulties rather than walk out on the whole congregation and ministry.

Deborah Brown. Cary

Pastors and friends

A March 19 letter-writer explained away Barack Obama's relationship with his pastor with the rationale that surely all of us have heard our pastors make statements from the pulpit with which we disagreed, and still remained members of that church.

This is no doubt true, if for no other reason that, while perhaps not in agreement with all our pastor's views, the church remains the neighborhood house of worship of our chosen denomination.

However, I doubt very much that where strong disagreement existed (especially where one might question such a pastor's allegiance to this country) we would embrace such a pastor as our close personal friend and mentor, and distance ourselves from his stated views only when they threatened the achievement of our personal goals.

Joan Robinson, Cary

When reason's applied

Regarding the March 21 McClatchy Newspapers article "Obama's church holds controversial views":

After hundreds of years giving religions a license to avoid rational scrutiny, could it be that finally we see that it matters what one professes to believe? I'm not sure the mainstream media are really ready to take Americans down the slippery slope of scrutinizing their religions with an objective lens. For politicians, it may no longer be acceptable to check your cognitive skills along with your coat at the church door and then later walk out as if nothing happened.

Americans might have to explain to each other exactly what they believe and why. If your religion believes the story of Noah's ark and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, can you expect to be elected as the "education president"? Is it true that you partake in ceremonies such as the Eucharist and baptism? That nonbelievers should be killed? Do you regularly talk to the creator of the universe?

No more cherry-picking of ancient texts -- it all gets laid out on the table. After all, the rules of politics are in play now. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and watch your assertions face the blasphemous discourse of reason.

Tom McIndoo, Durham

What Americans value

Jonah Goldberg's March 20 piece "Obama's answer: Eloquence in the service of liberalism" offered a grossly pessimistic take on Barack Obama's view of America under an Obama administration.

Goldberg said that in Obama's view, "pretty much any inconvenient discussion of race is a distraction from what America really needs: a huge expansion of the welfare state. ... For all the wonderful rhetoric and tantalizing promise of Obama and his speech, there's not much that is actually new here. ... The old baggage has been replaced with shinier suitcases, but the contents are the same as ever."

Next page >

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.