...will Michelle Obama cease to be proud of her country?
55 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?
...or against it?
...will Michelle Obama cease to be proud of her country?
If McCain and his supporters run a decent race where McCain talks about the actual issues (as opposed to NON-issues like attempts to tar and feather Obama's former pastor) and he manages somehow to win - no swift-boating, no lying ads, no Willie Horton ads - then we can be proud of the process.
But the longer this sickening sideshow of attacks continues, the more ashamed I am of AT LEAST that segment that engages in such hypocritical and diabolical actions.
There is a difference between hating the sin (lying and vicious attacks) and hating the nation where such happens.
It's funny that Dan insists that there's a difference between hating the sins of a country and hating the country itself.
We understand that difference, and it's one reason why Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric is so profoundly repellent.
It's not a lie to point out that Wright's preaching is hateful, racist demagoguery. And since Obama is running primarily on his judgment -- since his experience is negligible and his actual policies bear no resemblence to his centrist rhetoric -- it's not a digression to question his judgment based on his decision to attend this demagogue's sermons for twenty years, to give literally tens of thousands of dollars to his church, to have his wedding conducted by him, to have his daughters baptized by him, to title his best-selling book after one of his sermons, and to make him an advisor to his campaign.
The man believes that the U.S. government created HIV and distributed crack to oppress blacks, the latter of which you admitted (if inadvertently) at your own blog. His hatred of this country cannot be reasonably disputed.
Nor can Wright's racism be reasonably disputed. Even by your own admission, Dan, his church promotes a "12-Point Black Value System". Black Values: if any church promoted "white values," that church would obviously be racist, and I cannot fathom that you would not notice that.
Accusing others of playing the race card for pointing out that Jeremiah Wright routinely plays the entire deck is a cute trick, but this Orwellian tactic simply crumbles in the reality of the situation.
The hypocrisy of that particular post is flagrant, even for you.
On the one hand, you write that, if people must criticize Wright, they should do so privately or at least provide substance evidence against him, as if what we have already seen isn't damning:
If you have a problem with a brother, you point it out to them and, if you must discuss it publicly, you point out exactly what he's done that you disagree with. You don't say he's a false teacher and a hater and a racist without supporting such dangerous accusations.
Have you applied the same standards to attack those who are critical of Wright? No, you have not.
Have you gone to them privately? So far as I know, you have not.
Now that you're accusing them in public of the vicious smear of "digital lynching", do you at least produce one "solid quote" to substantiate your charge?
No, you do not.
But, by all means, please keep telling us what's really shameful.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I just did at my blog. Quite reasonably.
You are wrong.
What is UN-reasonable is to say, "I listened to these three/four excerpts of this man's sermons and that qualifies me to say he is a racist and he hates the US."
That is a statement of opinion based on nothing. It is not saying, "Wright said x, y and z and these are racist, hateful opinions because..." and explaining why.
For the most part, the Rabid Right is foaming at the mouth just making the sweeping accusations. "HE HATES THE US! HE HATES WHITEY! BELIEVE IT! I SAID SO, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!" (slobber, slobber).
THAT is what is happening right now. Here in Eric's blog. Over on Marshall's blog. In bubba's comments. Over at Mark's blog. etc, etc, etc. They aren't saying WHY they think he's hateful and racist, just making the accusations. Claiming that he's not a Christian, that he's probably Muslim, on and on the lies and twisting goes.
It is disgusting and loathesome. Needless to say, it is anti-Christian and anti-American in the extreme to make unfounded and unsupported charges.
And this helps explain why the Republicans can't get ten black folk to vote for them. Context matters. Yes, it would be racist to promote "white values." No, it is not racist in our context to promote "black values."
Yes, we need to get past that. No, we're not yet there. For all his faults, I think President Obama will help us get there.
May this sort of swift-boating die a painful death in hell where it belongs and soon.
As Obama righteously noted:
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle -- as we did in the O.J. trial -- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina -- or as fodder for the nightly news.
We can play Rev. Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.
We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."
Amen, and amen.
...we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.
If the statements aren't racist, how is it that they can widen the racial divide? If they aren't hateful and anti-American, how is it that they can denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation?
There's a lot that I find less than helpful about Obama's speech. He seems to want to call us simultaneously to discuss race and move past race -- perhaps we should only discuss race in ways that are helpful to his campaign -- and, here, I'm actually not sure that it's entirely honest for Obama to call Wright his "former" pastor since I believe Wright has only announced his retirement for later this year and since I don't believe Obama has changed his membership to another church. Because Obama said something, it doesn't mean I automatically agree.
But what do people like Dan make of this comment? Why did Obama unequivocally condemn Wright's comments if they were so mundane and even accurate?
What possible context could exonerate Wright as a hateful, racist demagogue, in light of the excerpts that we've seen?
If it's so anti-Christian and anti-American to make unfounded and unsupported charges, when are you going to start posting "solid" quotes that show how the "Rabid Right" is guilty of a "digital lynching"?
And, again, if Wright's comments are so defensible, why did Obama, in that same speech you're gushing over, unequivocally condemn those comments?
The playbook is stale, Dan. You're not going to be able to shame people out of criticizing Wright and judging Obama for his extraordinarily close relationship to him: Wright's venomous rhetoric deserves to be criticized, and Obama's relationship with him deserves to be scrutinized.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism...
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."
The life Obama has led for two decades makes absolutely clear the choice he has already made. For whatever reason, he spent twenty years making his church home in a hotbed of division and conflict and, yes, hatred and racism. It's not itself divisive to hold this man accountable for that decision.
Obama's pathetic claim to the contrary, and yours, is transparent.
No, I absolutely will not be able to shame those who have shown no shame. Some relatively small percentage of haters are going to hang on to this and keeping trying to make an issue of it.
The rest of us are going to recognize the ploy and move on. The question is: How many people will listen to the haters and twisters?
I suspect you will only serve to further marginalize your positions.
God, may it be so.
Ummm, because they're divisive?
You see, "racist" means that you think there's something better about your race and something deficient about other races. Wright never said that. No one has pointed to a quote to support that notion.
The suggestion that Wright's comments are racist are simply not supported by facts.
On the other hand, "divisive" (in our context) means that you are using your language or actions in ways that serve to bring division unnecessarily.
Wright's language, as I and Obama have noted, is somewhat divisive. "Unnecessarily strident" I believe is how I described it.
That is different than racist.
Understand?
We are pointing out the racism, but it's impossible to persuade someone to see what he refuses to see, someone who thinks that a focus on "white values" is racist but a focus on "black values" isn't.
And there is more than one way to express racism: demagoging another race, making false accusations against that race, is racist.
Do you want to defend the charge that "white America" and its government invented AIDS and distributed crack as an act of genocide against blacks? If you don't, you can't ignore Wright's charge as not being racist because it doesn't fit your oh-so conveniently narrow definition of the term -- a definition, it's worth noting, that would NOT acknowledge the racism inherent in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
In the context of oppression.
The Jews, for instance, are constantly told to hold on to Jewish values in the OT. That's not a sign of racism, but rather, a reminder to not become swallowed up by the surrounding culture and lose who they are.
Christian preachers oftentimes preach the same thing. Do you think it is elitist for Christians to promote their own belief system? Even if they're in a minority position in a land that has oppressed them? Or is it a GOOD thing to remind the faithful of what the oppressors have done and what their values are?
I say it's a good thing.
And this is an obvious thing to, I think, most people. I think most patriotic Americans recognize the difference between the Klan promoting white pride and the Black church promoting Black values.
I think the failure to recognize this good, moral value is why Republicans can't buy black votes, no matter how poor the Dems have been as an alternative.
Live and learn. Or not.
My! What a fine, fine hypocrite you are, Dan! AND OFF THE MARK! WE are called by God, and our Lord Jesus Christ to promote CHRISTIAN values! And what Jeremiah Wright preaches is an embarrassment to that high calling.
In "our context" ?
No sir. In the context in which Wright's divisive statements were delivered. You don't get to change the framework upon which our criticism of Wright is based. Only Wright can do that, and he has yet to speak publicly to the charges against him.
Actually Dan, I think people are only just beginning to see that there is little or NO difference.
I've stated several times in several places that I'm not giving carte blanche to Reverend Wright. First off, I don't know anything about him other than a few snippets of excerpts from his sermons. He may be a horrible man.
All I'm saying is that I don't see the first sign of racism or hatred AT ALL in any of the quotes that have been offered.
I HAVE said that there are problems in what he's said. Some of the problems include:
1. The charge that the Gov't (not "white America" as some are alleging) invented AIDS and distributed crack tends to make Wright sound like a conspiracy theorist. Now, coming from a generation where the gov't OFTEN DID conspire against the Civil Rights movement and blacks, I find it understandable that he is a bit paranoid. I think this charge tends to mariginalize him and his Godly work (and make no mistake, this bit of paranoia aside, the Church HAS been doing Godly work - I've seen enough to know that to be true) and therefore is unproductive.
It is not, however, anti-US or anti-Whitey. It just isn't. It's just wrong, mistaken, and badly orated.
2. My biggest complaint is the (at least one) sermon where he propped up a presidential candidate, giving the appearance of endorsement. This is just wrong from the pulpit and I haven't really seen anyone addressing that.
Now, again, given that it's Obama's own church home, I find it at least a little understandable. Nonetheless, it's wrong.
"White greed keeps blacks in need."
"USA of KKK America"
"G D America!"
All from the right reverend Wright.
The problem with Obama is this:
"All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn."
--Barack Obama
This seems to be the General Rule of Obama--if it's going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements
His campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print 'void where prohibited' waivers.
"Condemned if Controversial."
His language in your four lines of his twenty + years of ministry, are indeed divisive. Not helpful.
But they aren't racist and they aren't anti-America.
Do you think God damns sin? So does Wright.
Do you think that when a country openly engages in outright sin, that God will hold that country accountable? So does Wright!
He's probably preaching in a style (in at least these four snippets) that is not dissimilar from what you're comfortable with and hear in your pulpit most Sundays.
Obviously, Wright doesn't hate all of America or think all of America is racist "Whiteys." His own family and church, if nothing else, I'm sure he doesn't think of as racist or "whitey."
In context, Wright is condemning racism and systems of gov't that hurt his black community. His family.
It is not wrong to condemn sin. You do it all the time. That is what I'm mainly hearing from Wright.
Now, I and Obama both think that in at least a few dozen words over a career that surely had hundreds of thousands of words uttered, that in those few cases, he doess sound divisive and he and I both condemn that.
Join with us in that without taking several steps further and condemning what he HASN'T said. In doing that, you are creating an obvious strawman to promote hatred and division.
Obama and I both condemn that.
As does God, seems to me.
They will know we are Christians by our love.
Romans = European = Caucasian
Jesus most certainly had a dark complexion, but He was not "black" as reverend Wright defines it.
Yet another example of your hypocrisy, Dan! How many pastors on the Right called Katrina a judgment of God? And yet they are vilified by YOUR Christian brethren, and poo-poohed by you as well. But because of Wright's blackness-- and your defense of the indefensible --he's allowed to get away with what others could not.
Bravo, Dan.
"They will know we are Christians by our love."
Where's the love, Reverend Wright? Where's the love?
"Jewish." "Christian." "Black."
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.
Why were Jews "constantly told to hold on to Jewish values in the OT"? It wasn't because they were being oppressed because this "constant" command applied both when they were in capativity and when they ruled the Promised Land. It was because Judiasm is divinely given.
You make a category error, by the way, of treating Jewish culture as primarily racial. It isn't, it is -- like Christianity -- primarily religious. The religion wasn't limited to a particular race, as Exodus 12:48 implies that non-Abrahamic converts can participate in Passover after being circumcized.
The Jewish culture is religious; the Christian belief system is religious; promoting "black values" is promoting the values of a race and is therefore racist.
You admit that promoting "white values" is racist: the existence of oppression is not a philosopher's stone that removes all racism from the promotion of "black values".
It is shameful how you positively excuse Wright's libel.
The charge that the Gov't (not "white America" as some are alleging) invented AIDS and distributed crack tends to make Wright sound like a conspiracy theorist. Now, coming from a generation where the gov't OFTEN DID conspire against the Civil Rights movement and blacks, I find it understandable that he is a bit paranoid.
Is it equally understandable that Palestinian Arabs believe the blood libel that Jews use Gentile blood in Passover ceremonies?
It is not, however, anti-US or anti-Whitey. It just isn't. It's just wrong, mistaken, and badly orated.
It's not anti-American to believe that our government created AIDS and distributed crack as an act of genocide against blacks?
"Needless to say, it is anti-Christian and anti-American in the extreme to make unfounded and unsupported charges."
You wrote that, not me. Wright has made terrible accustions and cast them at the U.S. government, and he has made "unfounded and unsupported charges," but now -- suddenly -- you ignore your own words because they actually apply to Wright? It isn't anti-American?
"It just isn't"?
As for his libel not being "anti-Whitey", it does appear that Wright thinks that the U.S. government is run primarily by whites to enable their systematic oppression of blacks. It does appear that Wright thinks the "US of KKK-A" is run by a government of whites and for whites. To libel that government and accuse it of genocide is at least as racist as, say, making unfounded accusations that the NAACP is using Mafia-style tactics of extortion and murder.
Neither of us would put up with the latter, and we would rightly label it as racist. It's a shame that you're such a willing accomplice to the former.
Amen
Hypocritical, diabolical, lying, vicious, disgusting, loathesome, anti-Christian, anti-American, haters and twisters.
And what has he said about Jeremiah Wright?
Well, he's divisive, and his statements are "wrong, mistaken, and badly orated."
We're telling the truth that Jeremiah Wright is a hateful, racist, anti-American demagogue, and Dan accuses us of lying, which he says is anti-American.
Wright lies about our country and accuses our government of creating AIDS and distributing drugs to commit genocide against blacks, and Dan thinks it's understandable. Even though the libel is directed against America, he insists the libel isn't anti-American: "It just isn't."
"God d--- America"?
Dan denies the clear meaning of that statement to argue that Wright is just condemning the sins of America and not America itself.
And Dan has the audacity to say that we're the one's who are lying.
That's not even the half of it. There's also the implication that these hateful remarks are infrequent:
His language in your four lines of his twenty + years of ministry, are indeed divisive. Not helpful. [emphasis mine]
And:
Now, I and Obama both think that in at least a few dozen words over a career that surely had hundreds of thousands of words uttered, that in those few cases, he doess sound divisive and he and I both condemn that. [emphasis mine]
Look at the congregation's reactions, Dan. In each of those clips, there isn't the stunned silence of a church that believes their pastor to be a loving Christian man only to hear him go off the script and entertain hateful conspiracy theories.
No, they're celebrating, cheering, and slapping him on the back. They're ecstatic about the hatred. They're eating it up.
Every time.
It's plain as day that the congregation expects and enjoys the catharsis of such hate speech. It's Jeremiah Wright's bread and butter: those few dozen words are precisely the sort of rhetoric that attracted that congregation.
Those few dozen words aren't abberations of a ministry of love and reconciliation, they are -- at the very worst -- only among the worst examples of what must be a frequent message, as the congregation's reaction most assuredly proves.
If you're visiting a church and see a preacher say stuff like that and see the congregation react like that, there's truly no need to go back and see if that Five Minutes Hate was a one-time anomaly.
Wright's evidently anticipated demagoguery was successful in whipping the congregation into a celebration of hatred of their supposed oppressors. The act was positively Orwellian.
But no less Orwellian is the effort that Obama, Dan, and others have made in suggesting that criticizing this hatemonger is the real racism, the real divisiveness, and the real anti-American and un-Christian behavior.
Bravo Dan, don’t forget your overalls.
The bigger question I have is: Is there any biblical basis for making unsupported charges and accusations based on how somebody's words make you feel? As in, "I FEEL like he's saying he hates all whites! I FEEL like his words indicate that he hates the US!"
Any biblical basis at all for that sort of demagoguery? No.
We aren't arguing that we "feel" Wright's rhetoric is racist and anti-American. We argue that it objectively is racist and anti-American. Dan is here making "unsupported charges and accusations" that our complaints are based in feelings and not thoughts.
One irony is that Dan continues to excuse Wright's unsupported charges and allegations, e.g., that the U.S. government invented AIDS and distributed crack as an act of genocide against blacks.
But, more than that, his comment here shows that he grants legitimacy to unsupported accusations based on hateful feelings if they come from a properly oppressed victim group.
The charge that the Gov't (not "white America" as some are alleging) invented AIDS and distributed crack tends to make Wright sound like a conspiracy theorist. Now, coming from a generation where the gov't OFTEN DID conspire against the Civil Rights movement and blacks, I find it understandable that he is a bit paranoid. [emphasis mine]
Black anger and paranoia directed at whites? Dan confers on such un-Christian feelings legitimacy and authenticity.
Any anger in response -- even anger that is limited to indignation at libel and not genuine grievances about Jim Crow -- is to be condemned.
Wright's rage is to be coddled, but even wholly justfiable outrage at his hate speech is to be denounced.
Obama took a subtly similar approach yesterday. He spoke that black anger must be understood:
That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
But while he admitted that both black anger and white anger are counter-productive when the real enemy is (apparently) economic freedom, he never urged his black audience to understand white anger in the same way he urged whites that understanding black anger is essential.
Then provide an example. ONE CLEAR example of Wright condemning White folk as a people.
This is what I'm saying; you're taking an excerpt, "White greed keeps blacks in need." and saying that I FEEL LIKE THIS MEANS that Wright hates whites.
He didn't SAY he hated whites, that's how you feel unobjectively that it's what he means.
"Fear the black man. Especially the angry black man."
It ain't gonna play, homeys. It ain't gonna play.
Y'all feel free to demagogue and tell us what he means. Use your amazing psychic powers to get inside his mind and determine what he thinks better than Wright himself. You can also tell me what I think if you want.
Being gods, you should have no problem with doing so. You've done it plenty already.
His point, such as it is, is still premised on a conveniently narrow definition of racism:
Then provide an example. ONE CLEAR example of Wright condemning White folk as a people.
It's apparently not racist to suggest that the American government is an instrument of systemic white oppression of blacks, and to libel that government with the charge of attempted genocide through drug trafficking and manufactured plagues.
By this logic, it's not racist to accuse synagogues of using Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies, so long as you're not explicitly "condemning [Jews] as a people."
Dan, you're invoking the implausible to defend the indefensible.
BZZZZZ!
Sorry, but thanks for playing!
Tell me, if someone accused synagogues of using Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies but didn't condemn Jews as a people and didn't explicitly say, "I hate Jews," is he guilty of anti-Semitism or not?
Your arbitrary standard excludes the blood libel as a clear and sufficent indication of racism. As such, your standard should be discarded as largely irrelevant to the question of whether Wright is guilty of racist speech.
You're playing games, Dan, and you're demonstrating that it's more important to you that you play "gotcha" with loaded questions rather than deal with the enormity of what Wright said.
Wright apparently believes that the American government is an instrument of institutionalized racism on behalf of white oppressors and he has accused the government of ATTEMPTED GENOCIDE.
Rather than deal with that, you'd rather deliberately craft a question that sidesteps this libel just so you can go, BZZZ, thanks for playing.
Your behavior doesn't begin to resemble a serious approach to Wright's hateful rhetoric.
Yes, Wright apparently believes or at least thinks this is possible. He doesn't trust our gov't very much. This much you and I agree upon.
We also agree that it is a belief that is over the top in terms of believability.
Where we part ways is that you ADD TO Wright's meaning, "Therefore, he hates white people or the US."
THAT is the step that you are taking liberties with and that I'm asking for some credible reason we should take YOUR interpretation of what he meant rather than HIS explanation of what he meant.
You (all) continue to make this HUGE leap from what facts we have on hand to what you feel in your heart of hearts. "This is what he MEANS when he says that."
I don't buy it. You've offered no reason for me to do so. Instead, you have engaged in demagoguery (much like Wright).
It is an emotion-based fear-mongering, not logic-based reasoning, in which you are engaging here.
Sorry Dan, you're not the host of this show! But thanks for playing.
Dan, you are bought and sold as an Obama supporter. So much so you have thrown commonsense AND logic to the wind. Your complaints here are baseless and, to be quite frank, idiotic.
Okay, we get it... You think WE'RE being racist for suggesting Obama's pastor is racist. We're racists because we recognize his middle name, but Barack is not racist when he suggested Imus be fired for his racist remarks, and is strangely willing to support his pastor.
From the lips of Barack Obama:
"The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds. With a public platform, comes a trust. As far as I'm concerned, he violated that trust."
""He didn’t just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women—who I hope will be athletes—that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting."
But he's very interested in supporting his now-ex pastor. Firing him from his campaign ONLY because of his racist remarks flooded the airwaves, and created problems for his campaign. Don't you dare try to tell us that had this 'scandal' not reared its head that Wright STILL have been let go.
Barack doesn't want his teenage daughters to hear the racist remarks of Imus, but pastor Wright's racist remarks are A-O.K.
Oprah Winfrey, heretic that she is DESPITE all her humanitarian efforts, had sense enough to leave Wright's church years ago. YEARS ago.
So why did Obama stay? Simple answer? Because he loved his pastor more than he loved the truth and love of God. And that is the truth. Whether you care to accept it or not.
And trying to debate semantics, Dan? You lose even on that score.
If someone accused synagogues of using Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies but didn't condemn Jews as a people and didn't explicitly say, "I hate Jews," is he guilty of anti-Semitism or not?
Is the blood libel itself sufficient proof that a person hates Jews, or must he still explicitly say that he hates Jews?
There are other things worth pointing out. You haven't demonstrated why we shouldn't believe the clear meaning of "God d--- America," and you still presume psychic powers when you dare to tell me what I feel in my heart of hearts.
Regarding Wright you mention "HIS explanation of what he meant", and I wasn't aware that he had explained his comments and would welcome more information about his explanation -- his explanation, not yours.
But the important thing is my question of the blood libel against the Jews. I would appreciate an answer to my question.
You won't accept any evidence we offer... ANY evidence... as credible. Beside which, Jeremiah Wright has yet of offer HIS explanation.
"I don't buy it. You've offered no reason for me to do so. Instead, you have engaged in demagoguery"
We've offered no reason you will accept however based upon fact or flawless semantics, instead you yourself have engaged in both demagoguery toward us as well support for speeches that do not rise to the level of Godly discourse.
"It is an emotion-based fear-mongering, not logic-based reasoning, in which you are engaging here."
Are you not emotional!? Sure you are. Your guy is getting roasted alive in the court of public opinion and it ticks you off. What SHOULD tick you off is the fact that Obama spent twenty years at the feet of this man, a man Oprah has the good sense to flee years ago. You yourself are not arguing logic or reason. Your every argument has been loaded with emotion and fear.
"Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
If a man, absent of any evidence whatsoever, accused his father of murder, it can hardly be said that this is a good indication he loves his father.
If a man slanders his coworker and wrongly, deliberately accuses him of fraud, it can hardly be said that this is a good indication he loves his coworker.
But here this preacher broadcasts the worst sort of libel against his own country, accusing his country of ATTEMPTED GENOCIDE, and it's presumptuous to conclude that he hates his country?
That's ridiculous.
Okay, we get it... You think WE'RE being racist for suggesting Obama's pastor is racist. We're racists because we recognize his middle name
Apparently you DON'T get it. I never said nor did in intimate that you are racist.
AGAIN, THIS is what I'm talking about: You all get it in your head that somebody who said "A" actually means, "B" and possibly "C." And no amount of the Other saying, "But I honestly didn't SAY or MEAN 'B' or 'C'!!" matters. What appears to matter is what YOU THINK they mean.
Why is that? Do you really think you know better what they mean than they do? Or is it that you suspect all of us are probably lying? And for what reason do you suspect we're lying? Because you feel it in your heart of hearts?
I'm sorry to tell you this, but your feelings just don't matter! - Not when we're trying to have a logical, civil conversation. You can "have a hunch" about it, if you want, but that doesn't make it reality.
Actually, it doesn't appear (according to Rasmussen) that this has hurt his standing much at all. It appeared to tick down a bit for a couple of days, then, following his speech, it appears to be ticking back up.
This is a haters-only issue. Not one for the population at large, seems to me.
I AM a bit disgusted at the attempts by the haters to twist this into an issue that simply isn't there.
But my reasoning is logical and sound. I've freely said that there are problems with some of what Wright said, and that it was divisive. If those who have a problem with Wright would have attacked what he actually said, they may have actually made some ground, but no, they did what you did here in your post, Eric, they attacked without actually referencing what he did or didn't say.
Instead, they just went straight for the presumption of guilt and if you didn't agree, then you were an America-hater racist, too. We ain't buying that load of crap.
I frankly don't know a lot of contexts in which lynching does not involve racism. Maybe you do, but I would caution you from using that particular word because people will conclude that your insinuating that others are racist.
I will ask it again.
If someone accused synagogues of using Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies but didn't condemn Jews as a people and didn't explicitly say, "I hate Jews," is he guilty of anti-Semitism or not?
If someone accused synagogues of using Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies but didn't condemn Jews as a people and didn't explicitly say, "I hate Jews," is he guilty of anti-Semitism or not?
I haven't addressed this becaus, frankly, I don't know what the heck you're asking.
If someone makes an accusation based on nothing towards a group (Jews, in your example), are they guilty of anti-semitism? Is that what you're asking?
Well, I reckon I don't know. What was their reason for making the accusation? Why would someone make such a claim? What do they have to gain by it?
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't follow your question.
I suppose if Nazis accused Jews of using Gentile blood - even though there was no evidence of that ever happening - then one might guess there might be some anti-Semitic reasoning behind it.
If the Klan accused a black church of kidnapping white girls - even though there was no evidence of such - one might guess racism as a motivating factor.
If a man of God - one who has fed the hungry, looked out for the poor, loved folk black and white, worked side by side with folk black and white, preached the gospel faithfully for years (including years where the gov't DID engage in unpleasantness towards the Civil Rights movement) - if THAT man makes a crazy-sounding statement about the gov't creating AIDS to wipe out black people, I see no reason to think that he hates Me, as a white guy. In fact, logical evidence would contradict drawing that opinion.
Does that help?
'Twas not my intent. My intent was that it seems like Wright's being railroaded, swift-boated by those who are desparate to derail his campaign.
Are railroaded/swift-boated better terms than "lynching?"
As a term, "railroading" most certainly does not contain the same racist undertones as "lynching."
It may be that "Swiftboating" may be even more appropriate. In both cases, ties to the candidate's past called into question one of his supposed strengths as a candidate -- Kerry's valor as a war hero, and Obama's judgment and role as a racial uniter. I don't agree with the connotation that liberals would attach to "Swiftboating", but it is a more accurate and less racially charged term.
I appreciate your answer, and I do find it tremendously helpful: you make clear that you think accusing synagogues of the blood libel isn't intrinsically anti-Semetic, and I believe that's wrong-headed and dangerous.
I believe that we have sufficient moral clarity to know that the blood libel is anti-Semitic, period. The motive and what the person had to gain is immaterial, and just as the blood libel is intrinsically anti-Semitic, the libel that America's government created AIDS to wipe out blacks is intrinsically anti-American.
You don't agree that the blood libel is intrinsically anti-Semetic and even in hypothetical involving Nazis and the Klan you write that "one might" -- not that you would or that one should, but only that "one might" -- "guess" that racism is a factor.
Your lack of moral clarity on this point is disturbing, particularly when you can so glibly call others "haters."
If a man of God - one who has fed the hungry, looked out for the poor, loved folk black and white, worked side by side with folk black and white, preached the gospel faithfully for years (including years where the gov't DID engage in unpleasantness towards the Civil Rights movement) - if THAT man makes a crazy-sounding statement about the gov't creating AIDS to wipe out black people, I see no reason to think that he hates Me, as a white guy. In fact, logical evidence would contradict drawing that opinion.
I think it's sufficient evidence that he's anti-American, and since he thinks that the American government is an instrument of institutionalized white oppression of blacks, I also think it's fair to conclude he's a racist even if he can personally work with individual whites.
I frankly believe it's likely that, of those who are aware of his hateful rhetoric, the only whites who would work with Wright are those self-loathing whites that enable his hate-mongering, coddles it with an attempt to understand it, and even celebrates it as prophetic.
But the comparison to the blood libel remains. If a pastor or preacher did all these good works for the poor and even worked alongside Jews and still maintained that synagogues used Gentile blood in Passover ceremonies, he's clearly guilty of anti-Semitism. Period.
In spreading the libel that our government created AIDS to wipe out blacks, I believe Wright is clearly guilty of anti-Americanism, and I further argue that, along with his comments about the "US of KKK-A" and others, this comment is racist, as well.
And I use the term "haters" because you are speaking hatefully towards a preacher. You are assuming you know his motives, despite what his words are, and you all are using hateful names in an attempt to slander him (nutjob, "preacher", "christian", "so-called 'christian'" racist, "probably a Muslim," etc, etc.)
If you wanted to criticize his words and actual content, then that would be legitimate and not worthy of being called hateful. But instead, we have had mostly character attacks on this preacher who is not the one running for office and that IS hateful.
YOU are the only one here who has used "probably Muslim"
YOU are the only one here who has used "so-called 'christian'"
YOU are the only one here who has used "'preacher'"
And to accuse us of using those words and phrases against Wright? Does that make YOU a liar?
"The government lied about the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
Hateful names?
Does the phrase "US of KKK-A" sound familiar?
How does your calling others "haters" not qualify as an instance of the very character attacks of which you accuse others? How does your use of the epithet not imply that you assume to know our motives?
You are guilty of the most stunning hypocrisy.
We conclude that Jeremiah Wright hates this country, not despite his words -- it's not as if these are words of love for our country -- but because of them. If you can damn us for our words, we can certainly damn him for his.
You just admitted that there IS such a thing as "speaking hatefully" and using "hateful names.
It is now a question of whether Wright's rhetoric qualifies as hateful; this idea that we can't determine hate from rhetoric has been shown to be a charade.
Bubba, re; "It's funny that Dan insists that there's a difference between hating the sins of a country and hating the country itself."
LOL. No what's funny is that that came from someone who, I am sure, believes that hating the sin, but loving the sinner, makes sense.
In other words; There is no difference in hating the sin and hating the sinner. You may sit down now.
ER, that is pure ignorance. It may be true for you, seeing as how it's part of YOUR thought process, but what you're really saying is, "God can't hate sin AND love the sinner." If He hates sin he must therefore hate the sinner.
But of course we know this is balderdash. Do you mean to tell me that if you truly hated something Dr. ER had done that that must mean you hated her as well? Can I not hate that my sisters abuse their bodies with drugs and alcohol, yet love them in spite of their sin?
Really, ER! Very poorly done, sir.
You may sit down now.
The explanation Rev. Moss gave centered around Black identity being about culture rather than race. He said that most blacks don't know their african heritage. They don't have the familial historical context that someone of irish, hispanic, or asian heritage. His position was that we don't condemn people who extoll the virtues of their cultural heritage. For many African-Americans, their race is all the cultural heritage they have.
It was a compelling argument, something I can understand.
I will say only this: Christians must certainly be careful that our righteous indignation at sin and injustice does not spill over into hatred for the sinner, but it is indeed possible to love the sinner while hating the sin.
If love is defined as the desire for what's in the best interests of the beloved, a mature love for a person actually requires hate for those sins that separate him from God and cause him trouble in innumerable ways.
In fact, the cross can only be explained by both God's infinite love for us and His complete hatred of sin. If God were to hate sin less than He does, He would not have required the Crucifixion as the means of our forgiveness for sin: the cup would have passed over Jesus. It's clear that, for reasons that you've never given and that I doubt I would fully fathom, you reject the notion that Jesus is the Messiah promised in Jewish Scripture and that His death was a sacrifice for our sins: what isn't clear is the answer to the question, if Jesus didn't die for our sins, why did He die?
I'm not sure you can provide an answer that is even remotely adequate in light of the Incarnation, but I suspect that any answer you would have would be far outside the bounds of small-o orthodoxy and -- more importantly -- would significantly distort your conception of Jesus from what I believe God intends it to be.
YOU are the only one here who has used "probably Muslim"
A small clarification and then I'll leave y'all to your own devices: I was saying "you all" to include folk like Mark, Rev. Timothy, Neil, etc along with their commenters. And of all the 6-9 blogs that I frequented, there were words like those used.
That you did not use them here is to your credit.
But you do, for instance, Eric, call Obama, "Hussein." What is the purpose of that? Of course, I don't know your heart, but it seems like, in the context of our nation right now, you are using it as an epithet. As a reminder that he SEEMS like he might have Muslim inclinations, which might SEEM to suggest that he might be supportive of terrorists or not sufficiently stand up to them.
What reason would YOU give for using Obama's middle name? Is it done out of respect, somehow? Out of admiration that this natural born leader springs forth from American AND African roots, with Christian AND Muslim roots, and that as such, he represents what's GREAT about the US - the Melting Pot at its best?
Is that why folk are using "Hussein?" If so, then God bless you. I agree.
If you are using it as an epithet, then shame on you for being un-usefully divisive.
Culturally, I'm American and proud to be so. Blacks may have more difficulties being proud to be American, but I think that has as much to do with the cottage industry of grievance mongering as it does with the genuine sins of the past.
The problem with Trinity UCC's approach is at least three-fold:
1) In seeking to foster an identity in being black, these people distort Christianity. Jesus wasn't a black man, and His love isn't limited to blacks and other minorities, and the New Testament is clear that this sort of racial separatism is an affront to the body of Christ that we're called to be.
2) It's not just that this identity in being black supercedes an identity in being an American, it repudiates that identity and is positively anti-American.
3) And -- and this is where racism comes in -- this identity in being black is premised on villifying whites. Demagogues like Wright seek to unify blacks by making whites the eternal and unchanging enemy and oppressor. It's the worst sort of scapegoating where whites are blamed for all the blacks' problems, a sort of scapegoating that has never done anybody any good throughout history.
It seems to me that one reason that people like Dan don't see this racism is that, like a battered spouse, they internalize the hatred that's directed toward them. They think the criticism is mostly right and deserved; the only problem is that it's excessive and therefore divisive and therefore a political problem for Obama.
The response from these enablers of Wright's hatred is that we shouldn't criticize the bile -- not this time! -- and instead just ignore the excess and implicitly "understand", accept, and further internalize the underlying criticism. Then, we can "move on" and usher in a new age of political unity.
For them, resisting the slander is the real expression of hatred.
This charge has been lobbed at least a couple of times:
It seems to me that one reason that people like Dan don't see this racism is that, like a battered spouse, they internalize the hatred that's directed toward them.
And I just thought I'd point out that, once again, you all simply don't know what you think you know. There is not an ounce of self-hatred as a white man going on in my reasoning.
This is another example of you reading words A, B and C and coming to the conclusion that I must also think X, Y and Z. When, in fact, what I think and what I mean is exactly what I said: A, B and C.
A funny note was made at one site recently that I'll pass on, even though it's off-topic:
Many of you folk so consistently have a problem understanding my/our words - words that were written this year from a man with a very similar background, history and language as you - and yet you can't correctly interpret my words.
Why in the world, then, do they suppose they can rightly interpret the words of the Bible written in multiple languages from multiple cultures 2000-6000 years ago??
Unrelated but astute observation, I thought. Sorry for the off-topic distraction, just thought it was funny and hoped you'd appreciate the humor.
Peace out, y'all!
Yes, context is important, you have demanded "solid" quotes to prove Wright's racism and anti-Americanism, and you have a history of taking offense when you believe you have been less than completely understood. For all those reasons, I ask for actual links to where those epithets like "nut job" were used.
I'm amazed at how sensitive you are about language directed at Wright and how insensitive you are about language from Wright.
Wright declares that the American government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide, and you don't think that alone is proof he's anti-American. Some conservative (somewhere) calls him a "nut job" for such a theory, and you're quick to declare that he and others are "using hateful names in an attempt to slander him."
Personally, I think using Obama's middle name isn't at all a substantive criticism of the candidate, though I do find amusing the delicate sensitivities of those who think using his middle name is an epithet. (Where were these people when Al Gore compared critics of global warming to Holocaust deniers?)
Of course, I don't know your heart, but it seems like, in the context of our nation right now, you are using it as an epithet. As a reminder that he SEEMS like he might have Muslim inclinations, which might SEEM to suggest that he might be supportive of terrorists or not sufficiently stand up to them.
One shouldn't invoke Obama's middle name to make that insinuation.
One doesn't have to.
Obama's made clear that he's willing to speak with our enemies with absolutely no preconditions, and in Iraq he wants to hand the jihadists a victory a thousand times greater than our shameful reatreat from Somalia.
And we're right back to the problem of Jeremiah Wright.
Wright's rhetoric is similar in tone -- and, particularly on the subject of Israel, similar even in substance -- to the worst rhetoric of a jihadist. In his hatred of the United States, in his unhinged villification of the United States, and in his positively exhuberent celebration of the murder of three thousand innocent Americans, Jeremiah Wright is hardly distinguishable from the leadership of a radical mosque.
Jeremiah Wright has been Obama's mentor for two decades. He peformed his wedding ceremony and baptized his children. Obama was a member of his church for twenty years gave literally tens of thousands of dollars to his church.
And Obama didn't apparently confront the man about his hateful rhetoric.
Obama now admits that Wright's words "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation [and] rightly offend white and black alike," but only when it was aboslutely politically necessary did Obama repudiate those words. Heck, only then did he even acknowledge he was aware of those words.
And in that repudiation, Obama didn't announce that he's leaving that church. He repudiated the words but not the man who spoke them:
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
He urged us that we must understand the reasons for Wright's hatred, and Obama repeatedly engaged in the worst sort of moral equivalency. His grandmother's fear of black muggers, white men's outrage at affirmative action, Ferraro's statement that Obama's political success is at least in part due to his race: all of these, Obama suggested, are equivalent to ranting from the pulpit that the American government lied about creating AIDS to wipe out blacks.
Are people concerned that Obama is insufficiently willing to stand up to hatred directed against our country?
They certainly should be.
Unrelated but astute observation, I thought. Sorry for the off-topic distraction, just thought it was funny and hoped you'd appreciate the humor.
I'm not naive enough to think that that was your actual intent, in the context of a similar point you made here, in a thread in which ER reveled in his calling me a stupid S.O.B., questioned the authenticy of my Christian faith, and whined about how I continually misunderstood his point.
(About that last point, I disagree strongly: I think I understood him perfectly. He just didn't like the logical conclusions of his position and decided to kill the messenger.)
In passive aggressive fashion that is all too typical for you, I'm expected to accept this unrelated swipe at me as "funny". If I dare not appreciate the humor, I'm engaging in unfair mind-reading and attributing to you horrible motives in bad faith.
Your behavior really is pathetic.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Richard Milhouse Nixon
George Herbert Walker Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
George Walker Bush
And if Barack IS our next president:
Barack Hussein Obama.
The more you and others tell me I CAN'T use his middle name, the more I, in defiance, will.
It's as simple as that.
That the church does indeed do so much to help the community and the poor is commendable. More churches should be as active. Also, as I said, there's nothing wrong with a church helping its primary "constituency" find relevance and pride in their heritage, but not at the exclusion of the gospel OR their love for God. And it is patently impossible to love God, while hating anyone, irrespective of the color of their skin.
Does Jeremiah hate white people? Perhaps it's not that strong. Only God knows. But even if it isn't outright hate, he is still at fault...
"...If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
By the way, Wright is a nutjob.