You don't continue to attend a church for 20 years if the pastor is spewing hate speach if you yourself don't also believe those things.

I spent a year going to different churches when I was younger. I attended a church at the largest bible college in Portland, and when the pastor said that AIDS was a punishment from god to the homosexuals and the only way to cure it was to pray and repent, I stood up and left right then. That's what a normal person does when confronted by hate speech like that. Continuing to attend for the next 20 years and donating large sums of money are a endorsement of such hate speech and nothing else.

I liked Obama from the start of his campaign, just as I liked Hillary from the beginning. The more I learn about this pastor the more clearer the picture is of the Obama clan, and the less likely I am to vote for him.

You are certianly welcome to your opinion about an appropriate time to leave a church, but may i suggest that your opinion is not universal?

Obama has said himself that he is a member of that church and not a disciple of Wright. It is possible that Obama identified with the church community moreso than Wright himself. Is it possible that Obama's ties to the friends he has in church and the good deeds that the church has accomplished are stronger than his aversion to Wright. Is it possible that a church is more than the pastor who speaks before it on occasion?

Further, there are NO political candidates still running who do not have ties to some church person who has said controversial things (Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, even Billy Graham said some nasty things about Jews during the Nixon administration).

You may vote for whomever you wish and you may have already decided. But if you are basing your decision on this Rev. Wright thing, you may want to think about it some more.

These "issues" are just excuses that have very little to do with substance. People who claim that Rev. Wright is the reason they are withholding their vote are BSing everyone else and maybe even themselves. They just want a viable excuse for how they felt anyway.

Back when Mel Gibson made "The Passion", people poited to remarks made by his father as proof of his anti-semetic leanings. That was wishful conjecture, However, until his recorded drunken rant suggested that he may have an issue, I would give credence to it. My point is, unless the words come from the person, you have no basis for what is in their heart.

I disagree. Mel Gibson didn't have a choice in who is father was. He couldn't just stop being the man's son. Obama could have left his church at any time, yet for 20 years attended, listened to this man speak, and gave this church money. Every week he had a choice to either walk away from a church that teaches this sort of thing, or continue to go and listen to it. Continue to supply monatary support to this church, or find another church to attend and support that is more to his views.

Actions speak louder than words. We all know politicians have a habit of lying, but they can't change what they have done in the past. His support of this church is a much more honest reflection of his true personal beliefs than anything he has said. And that's a real shame. I liked the guy and I really liked a lot of what he had to say.

Agree--we don't know who this guy is and his resume is too thin to tell us anything. We know he preaches eloquence to the masses from lofty heights-but we don't know anything about his beleifs or values.

Looking at who he associates with is a good start.

Uncovering how important black liberation theology is to his place of worship gives us clues.

And listening to a tape recording made when he was talking to his rich friends iat a closed door fundraiser in San Francisco offers us a clear picture of how he thinks about people not like him.

Are we to assume then that we are familiar with the other candidates? What is the basis for this familiarity?