With a black man all but nominated to the Democratic ticket, with honest criticism of the man Obama tainted by media and pundits alike as "racist"--when race is demonstrably not a factor--can any honest and philosophical criticism of America's first black president be proffered without being labeled as "racist"? In other words, can anyone disagree with a black president in today's American political and social climate without being called a racist?
86 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's happening now.
If I don't like Barack [and I don't] most people will believe I hate black people.
Welcome to the Barack's America; welcome to "Change" and "Hope"... assuming he's even electable in the General.
Here's another question; asked once before: Can Obama heal racial tensions/divides in America?
Short answer?
No. Things will only get worse... as evidenced by the need to ask the question in the first place.
Maybe it's an Alabam thing, or a Gerogia thing (I always forget which one yer in; please forgive), but I don't hear any criticism of Obama here baesd on raced.
Except from Republicans, who keep pointing out that he is black.
Somewhere in there is your answer.
The only peiople talking about Obama's race are adherents to the GOP.
Quit it.
"I disagree with policy X because..."
And offer what you think is a valid reason. It's pretty simple.
What you DON'T do is keep hinting at Muslim ties, keep referring to him as "Barry HUSSEIN Obama," keep pointing out that "he's a black man," etc.
In other words, talk about his policies all day long in lucid terms and you're fine.
On the other hand, bring up race, religion, attacks on the black church or a preacher who isn't running for office, and other non-issues and you'll risk being accused of racism.
Simple.
What a freaking idiot.
This is the DEMOCRAT primary, Reverend Dumb-ass. It's DEMOCRATS who are openly stating that race plays into their vote. It's TWO DEMOCRAT candidates who are trading racial blows.
And it's both fascinating and satisfying to watch.
Almost as fascinating as the justifications idiots like ER and Dan come up with.
You mean that his close relationship with domestic terrorists (admitted unrepentant killers, in fact) and his close, CLOSE relationship with his racist and America-hating spiritual advisor is off-limits because those who distrust this windbag are racists if they state these as reasons they don't want him as president?
Fascinating!
I disagree with policy X because I don't trust the member of Trinity Church who revered the racist, anti-American, Jeremiah Wright, and who viewed that same racist, america-hater as his spiritual advisor.
But then...I must be a RACIST for feeling that way.
Your justifications amuse me. I don't even find them disgusting because they are expected.
On the other hand, bring up race, religion, attacks on the black church or a preacher who isn't running for office, and other non-issues and you'll risk being accused of racism.
Criticize Obama for his close and lengthy association with a hate-spewing radical as Jeremiah Wright, and he'll accuse you of racism, even if your criticism has nothing to do with Obama or Wright's skin color. He'll play the race card, not because you're actually displaying a racist attitude, but simply because you're criticizing what Dan considers a "non-issue."
Isn't that, I don't know, a bit racist?
Excellent question Craig! I think Dan, and progressives in particular don't really know what a "black church" looks like.
"I am Pastor James David Manning here to give you the report on the trinity of hell. Thus saith the Lord, his name is Jesus. Oprah Winfrey, Barack Hussein Obama, and the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, this trinity, these three from the Trinity United Church in Chicago, Illinois. Number one, first, open-minded and middle-America white women supported a struggling actor and radio talk show host named Oprah Winfrey. Because of the many white women, who, without prejudice and lovingly supported this struggling actor and radio talk show host, she has now become, with the support of white women, one of the most famous and powerful women in America today.
"Now, when this struggling actor and radio talk show host had the opportunity to show her love and thanks to all of white America and white women in particular, for their love and support of her and supporting a rising presidential candidate in the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, Oprah Winfrey chose to support one of the boys from the 'hood and one of the boys from the Trinity United Church, disavowing and showing her contempt for the white women who made her the great woman that she is today. Thus saith the Lord, to all white women in America, boycott the Oprah Winfrey show. Go to your remote control now and block her show under your parental control guise. Do not purchase her products or services and do not become a guest on her show.
"Senator Barack Hussein Obama is a long-legged pimp. Senator Barack Hussein Obama is supported by a billionaire named George Soros, who founded an organization named MoveOn.org to rescue former president William Jefferson Clinton during his impeachment hearings some time ago. Now this organization -- or Move On organization has now thrown its ugly left-wing support wholeheartedly behind Barack Hussein Obama, pouring nearly $200 million into the pockets of Barack Hussein Obama and in advertising to support his candidacy. He spent nearly all of that money with white agencies, white hotels, white businesses, white newspapers, and very little, if any, was spent with black television or black radio.
"Barack Hussein Obama played and pimped Warren Ballantine, Michael Baisden, Russ Parr, Roland Martin, and Tavis Smiley, just to name a few. They gave it up for free. He pimped nearly all of the black media, gave them no money, but they gave it up for free. I say unto you that they were played by the master player. Now, this trinity of hell: the Father, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright; the Son, the Senator Barack Hussein Obama; and the whore girl, Oprah Winfrey. These three, now, they are looking to be the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state. This is the report on the trinity of hell, and I am Pastor James David Manning."
--Pastor James David Manning
Atlah World Missionary Church,
Harlem, New York
...a Black Minister. A Democrat, and a Hillary supporter.
There might be a "tradition" of a certain style of "preaching" in churches like United Trinity, but it's not Christian.
And Dad, pull yer britches up. The crack of yer brain is showing.
I think Dan, and progressives in particular don't really know what a "black church" looks like.
I would have to wonder, how many of y'all have attended a black church service? Have dinner with folk who attend black churches? Have african american members at your churches? Live in a racially diverse neighborhood? Work side by side with black churches on a regular basis? Have read King or studied under black teachers?
I have and do.
Do you know of which you speak at all?
I'm not presuming to speak for "the black church," because - like the "white church" - they are a diverse lot and they can speak for themselves.
Eric asked a question as to how to criticize Obama without being charged with racism. I answered what I thought was a helpful (albeit obvious) answer.
It is perfectly fine to look into a candidate's background and influences. BUT, let's not fixate on five sentences from a strong, Christian pastor's God-blessed ministry and pretend that we can viciously attack him, twist his words, call him a racist, ignore the context of those five sentences, question his Christianity and castigate Obama in all of this and then think that we might not be questioned on our racial attitude.
There's a difference between questioning a pastor's influence on a candidate's life and going on a full-fledged digital lynching of a man of God (flaws and all) based on five lines of text and be naive enough to think that our motives won't be questioned.
And we can't do all that in the context of a racially charged history and pretend to ignore that history as if it never happened and not expect to have our attitudes questioned.
Eric asked. I answered.
Take that for what it's worth.
There might be a "tradition" of a certain style of "preaching" in churches like United Trinity, but it's not Christian.
Oh? You prefer this "tradition" of "preaching" from this "christian" "preacher"?:
"Barack Hussein Obama played and pimped Warren Ballantine, Michael Baisden, Russ Parr, Roland Martin, and Tavis Smiley, just to name a few... Now, this trinity of hell: the Father, the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright; the Son, the Senator Barack Hussein Obama; and the whore girl, Oprah Winfrey..."
THAT'S what you call "preaching" the "word of god"? Is that what a "sermon" looks like in your "church," Eric?
Rumor-mongering? Name-calling? Tearing down brothers and sisters in Christ?
I thought no blasphemies were allowed on your blog, but I guess as long as we blaspheme God's workers that you don't like, it's cool?
Don't forget to "pray" for "forgiveness" for your "sins of hypocrisy" when you go to your "church" next time, brother.
You miss the point, Dan (of course).
They are Satan's minion.
Racism is satanic, wouldn't you agree?
If it were just his pastor, I might agree, but there's a pattern of bad judgment here that you seem all to willing to ignore in a black man, because he's black, that you would not ignore in a white man.
But why do you call Wright's ministry "God blessed"? What evidence? You like what you've heard? Read? Studied? What? Unless you've been in the church and heard the man's sermons, you haven't discovered anything about his ministry that I haven't... that many many others haven't.
The bible says to "Try the spirits to see if they are of God." We are not to just accept it because someone says it.
But the question isn't Jeremiah Wright. It's the fact that Barack want us us to believe that he said 20 years unmoving under the tutelage of the questionable and objectionable Dr. Wright, unaffected by Wright's heresies and blasphemes. Even Michelle has opined that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America....
That's not the kind of attitude I want in the White House. Frankly, I don't like the attitude of Clinton or McCain either, but this is the system were stuck with.
Bullsh*t!
Dan Trabue is THE MOST deceptive operator I have encountered on the WWW.
A purposeful tare if there ever was one!
Dan, you have no position to complain about other people's hypocrisy regarding rumor-mongering when you defended Jerimiah Wright's slander that the U.S. government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide -- when you wrote that, at worst his dangerous conspiracy theory is a minor offense compared to those preachers who aren't vocal enough defending the political positions you like.
"If Wright's hyperbole reached the level of crime, it was a misdemeanor. While too many pastors committed the felony of turning too blind an eye to - or even supported! - criminally immoral policy here at home."
Now, despite even Wright's recent speeches that prompted Obama to distance himself further from the man, you still downplay Wright's toxic rhetoric as "five sentences from a strong, Christian pastor's God-blessed ministry" and suggest that the context (of what? the cheering congregation?) would exonerate him.
Those are old talking points that have been rendered worthless by Wright's press-club speech.
And your continued accusation of a "digital lynching" is despicable, even for you.
But notice:
1) Dan didn't defend Manning as a flawed man of God as he has done for Jeremiah Wright.
2) Dan didn't suggest that the context exonerated Manning, as he has done for Jeremiah Wright.
3) Dan didn't assume that Manning is a "a strong, Christian pastor" with a "God-blessed ministry".
Manning is, again, a black Democrat. He happens to support Hillary instead of Obama, and because of this, Dan doesn't give him one tenth of the benefit of the doubt that he provides for Wright.
But why do you call Wright's ministry "God blessed"? What evidence? You like what you've heard?
Yes. 99% of what I've heard, I've found to be extremely Godly. Recall Jesus and John the Baptist, when John sent some followers to find out if Jesus was the real deal:
Jesus said to them in reply, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."
As they were going off, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out to the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?
"Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine clothing? Those who wear fine clothing are in royal palaces. Then why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
I call Wright a Godly man because I have read his Godly words, been impressed by his Prophetic stance, blessed by his Godly work in Chicago healing the sick, aiding the poor, doing the work our Lord said would be a sign and demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit.
I've also disagreed with his stupid comments (which have been 1/100th - 1/1000th - of what I've read from and about him). But I haven't rejected him because he has maybe a crackpot idea or two and has been rude in his presentation of some ideas that I agree with or perhaps find questionable.
In 20 years of ministry, you've found what? A paragraph? - Two? - from Reverend Wrigt that you find objectionable?
The following ministries have been developed under Dr. Wright's ministerial tutelage for social justice: assisted living facilities for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with HIV/AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.
This IS God's Work. Shame on any who'd attribute to satan the work of God.
We make choices and we engage in behaviors that bring consequences on our own selves, and we need to stop trying to blame God or blame the devil for stuff we did. How many times have you heard someone say, "The devil made me do it"? Flip Wilson made a million dollars telling that lie: The devil made me do it. We make choices and we engage in behaviors--tell your neighbor: Our choices have consequences.
Can I get a witness?
I've told you for over three decades now: God will forgive you for sowing wild oats. But God's forgiveness don't stop the crop. Them oats you sowed will bring a crop. You will reap what you sow.
Well?
Now think about if you will, the first time you heard Jesus speak. It may have been in Sunday school. It may have been when you were a youngster in church. It may have been when you were wallowing in the mud and the muck and the mire and the mess you brought on yourself with the choices that you made. When did you first hear Jesus speak? It may have been in a sermon, it may have been through a scripture, it may have been in a song.
You think about the first time you heard Jesus speak, while I tell you what happened to me when I heard him speak. When I heard him speak, he spoke words of life...
He speaks words of life back in John 6..."many," it says, of the Lord's disciples "turned back;" they stopped following Jesus and they no longer went about with him.
When Jesus starts talking about sacrifice and suffering, a whole lot of disciples desert him, because... they're looking for a payday. They're looking for a payoff. They're not trying to hear nothing about picking up no cross; they want to pick up some cash. Many, John says, walked away. Jesus turned and asked the 12 and said, "Do you also want to leave? And Simon Peter said, "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life."
Great stuff, that Gospel preaching. Can I get an "Amen"?
And shall I abandon and reject this brother in Christ because he said maybe five stupid lines in his life? (Certainly many more, but five or so lines that have got attention.) Shall we reject this man of God because he has one or two nutty beliefs?
Brother Eric, how many stupid lines have you said in your life? How many nutty beliefs do you have? Shall I reject you as a brother for being a flawed human?
Don't worry, I won't, brother.
Nor did I call Manning un-Christian. Nor did I reject his ministry. Nor did I suggest anything other than that those particular words were wrong.
As I did for Jeremiah Wright's words that I believe were wrong.
You, bubba, unfortunately would not recognize hypocrisy if you looked in the mirror in the morning.
The difference between me and y'all is that I am willing to condemn Wright and Manning's words when they get it wrong, but that does not mean I villify them or reject either of them as brothers in Christ.
How can this worm, saved by God's grace, offer anything less than grace to my brothers in Christ?
And these two paragraphs, posted so very close together, is itself proof of hypocrisy:
You, bubba, unfortunately would not recognize hypocrisy if you looked in the mirror in the morning.
How can this worm, saved by God's grace, offer anything less than grace to my brothers in Christ?
How can you? If your brother in Christ is politically conservative, you somehow find a way.
By all means, point out that saying the US gov't invented AIDS to kill blacks makes you sound crazy - I've said as much. But don't take the extra step to say, "therefore you're a racist, hateful anti-Christ."
THAT'S the difference between your approach and mine. Point out the sin, yes. Crucify the sinner, no.
Know someone who is black?
Anything?
Still, I'll try to be more constructive and Christ-like in my criticisms in the future. That is, I'll still likely disagree with you, but I almost certainly can do a better job in how I express that disagreement.
Sorry if I come on too strong.
I'm not going to tell you anything about my church's congregation or my social relations, because even to play that game is to lose, and it is to grant a false authority to the idea that "authenticity" and racial quotas are more important than facts and logic.
Your apology is appreciated, but I must reiterate that you have been doing precisely what you think has been so hard to tolerate: your repeated accusations of racism and "digital lynching" have no basis in reality.
Eric asked how he could criticize without being called a racist. I answered. That is not calling anyone racist.
As to the digital lynching, that is how I and many of my fellow christians here in Louisville - black and white - see the repeated harsh, twisted, out of context attacks on Brother Wright. You are free to disagree, but that is our opinion.
From where we sit, there was a rush to crucify the man based on maybe five paragraphs. It was not mere disagreement that we had a problem with - we disagree with some of his words, as well, STRONGLY so. But the accusations of racism, hatred, being a Muslim, not being a Christian and the twisting of his words that make it seem like a digital lynching to us.
Disagree if you wish.
And if Wright's comments weren't hateful, and if his black liberation theology isn't racist, why do you "STRONGLY" disagree with them?
I was/am apologizing if my tone was too strident and if I was too harsh on any of you.
And if Wright's comments weren't hateful, and if his black liberation theology isn't racist, why do you "STRONGLY" disagree with them?
Because HIS tone was too strident and divisive, in my estimation.
And because - no matter how reasonable it may seem to many of our brothers and sisters - you can't accuse the gov't of creating AIDS without sounding nutty and that does nothing for the cause of Justice and holding the gov't accountable for its many real mistakes and sins.
Make sense?
While you didn't specifically call any person here racist, you've been playing the race card as if it's the only card in your hand: the criticism about Obama may have nothing to do with race at all, but if it's about a "non-issue" you'll denounce it as racist.
I have demonstrably not made the first suggestion of racism, just how critiques will be received.
Is there some problem with criticizing policy rather than personality?
"Lynching" may have some racist connotations, but that was not my intent and it is not, by definition, a racist charge. I also used "crucified," as a way of explaining how the attacks on Reverend Wright are being made. I can switch to exclusively calling it "crucifying" if you prefer.
Where did he ask that?
I have demonstrably not made the first suggestion of racism, just how critiques will be received.
Recieved by whom? By you, or by some vague group of people you can't or won't identify?
You didn't just suggest that critiques would be received as racist, you suggested that the people themselves would be racist:
Here's a hint, if you want to critique Obama without being racist or accused of racism, then you do it like this...
There isn't a problem with criticizing policy, but there is a problem with suggesting that criticizing a candidate's character and judgment is racist.
And I for one would be reluctant to compare Jeremiah Wright to Jesus Christ, but since you already did that, using the phrase "crucifying" isn't that much worse...
...except that you keep criticizing villification. To accuse others of lynching and/or crucifying is to villify them: if you really want to demonstrate a concern for civil discourse, you would use terms that are more descriptive and less incendiary.
can any honest and philosophical criticism of America's first black president be proffered without being labeled as "racist"?
I answered:
Here's a hint, if you want to critique Obama without being racist or accused of racism, then you do it like this:
"I disagree with policy X because..."
And offer what you think is a valid reason. It's pretty simple.
What you DON'T do is keep hinting at Muslim ties, keep referring to him as "Barry HUSSEIN Obama," keep pointing out that "he's a black man," etc.
In other words, talk about his policies all day long in lucid terms and you're fine.
On the other hand, bring up race, religion, attacks on the black church or a preacher who isn't running for office, and other non-issues and you'll risk being accused of racism.
It is a straightforward answer without any accusations of racism. You can critique Obama's policies and judgements, you can even critique Wright's comments and judgements.
But when it changes from critique to attacks (and I don't see how most of what has happened with Wright can be characterized any more nicely than "attacks"), and those attacks are not done similarly towards white preachers, you will run the risk of -at the least - looking racist and quite possibly even downright demonstrating racism.
From where I sit, that is not an attack but an answer to a question asked. Given in a non-judgemental honest manner.
You are free to take it how you will, of course - you can attempt to find hatred and division where there was none - but that was the spirit in which it was offered.
Sorry I'm late to the party. Here's my $0.02
When your criticisms, start with supposition and innuendo, then you're gonna have a hard time convincing people, you aren't a political myrmidon.
Look at the Rev. Wright "controversy". The arguments flows: Reverend Wright believes in black liberation theology -> Barack Obama goes to Rev. Wright's Church -> Barack Obama must believe in black liberation theology. The first test is whether you see the flaw in that chain of logic. The second test is when Barack Obama disowned/repudiated/condemned Rev. Wright, did you take his words at face value?
To fix this chain of logic you would need something like -> Barack gave a speech supporting the ideas of black liberation theology. In the absence of such a fact though, one is forced to ask why those opposed to Barack are promulgating these false logic chains? Is it because he's liberal? young? well-educated? or racially black and of muslim descent?
Voting for Obama because he is black, or because you are black = not racist.
Voting for Hillary or McCain because she is white or because you are white = racist.
Personally, I think both are racist by definition.
I don't know Neil's heart to know if it was intentionally racist or just ignorant, but claiming that black folk will vote for Obama merely because he's black is stating a pretty low opinion for our African American brothers and sisters.
But good job drawing a conclusion about Neil that is both derogatory and unsupported by what he actually wrote.
But that is the kind of thing that I see written frequently that makes people think one is racist.
And, while you're at it, explain why a denunciation of racism strikes you as racist.
That kind of thing. And saying THAT is what is racist, because, like anyone else, our black brothers and sisters vote for many reasons.
Sound logical.
"The first test is whether you see the flaw in that chain of logic. The second test is when Barack Obama disowned/repudiated/condemned Rev. Wright, did you take his words at face value?"
Absolutely NOT! Why should I? He's proven himself dishonest on too many occasions. And, BenT, anyone who has ever been faithful to any church understands why the argument is a logical one.
Are you also "blessed" by the "godly" work being done by Hamas? Ho0w 'bout Hezbollah? Oh...I'm absolutely SURE you were "blessed" by the "good works" of Saddam Hussein.
I've read his words, too, Dan. I've seen his unrepentant performance before the National Press Club.
GHe's not my "brother".
THAT's the kind of attack and demonization that comes closer to being accurately called a lynching or crucifixion than just a rational disagreement with what the Man of God had to say.
But Jesus said "blessed are you when men revile you and say all manner of evil against you for my sake," so Ozarka is doing his part to bless Brother Wright and myself.
Thanks, brother.
You invoke Matthew 5, but you clearly do not understand Matthew 5, because Christians are not blessed when we're reviled for any old reason, but only when we're reviled for Christ's sake.
Sorry, but Jeremiah Wright's full-throated embrace of a racist theology is not an act of obedience to Jesus Christ, nor is his repeated hate-filled slander, nor is your downplaying of his vicious behavior.
By presuming that such flagrant sin is being done for Christ's sake and in His name, you are bearing false witness against your Lord and Savior, and you are taking His name in vain.
The arguments flows: Reverend Wright believes in black liberation theology -> Barack Obama goes to Rev. Wright's Church -> Barack Obama must believe in black liberation theology.
That's actually the most honorable conclusion one could draw, but there are other possiblities:
1) Obama joined Trinity UCC, not because he personally believes in black liberation theology, but because, in seeking an identity for himself, in trying to define himself as authentically black, and wrongly believing that black radicalism is the apex of black authenticity, he latched onto the most radical black preacher he could find, and that preacher became a surrogate father figure.
2) Or, worse, he joined a large, politically active church like Trinity in a cynical move to find success in Chicago's notoriously corrupt political system.
Take your pick. All of them call into question either his character or his judgment or both. There is no good explanation for why Obama joined such a politically radical church and found a spiritual mentor in such a hateful man.
Okay, you obviously know the Bible better than I do (never mind that I specifically mentioned "FOR MY SAKE"), have better reasoning than I have, love black folk better than I do, hang out in the 'hood all the time - when you're not busy sitting on the Throne of God giving the Big Guy some tips.
Keep up the good work. We mortals hope to follow in your steps one day, be patient with us until that time, oh omniscient one.
Yes I have attended black churchs. My personal favorite is when Rev. Jimmy preaches in St. Louis Du Nord, but serving easter dinner at Calvary Babtist is pretty cool too. Not to mention Mike, Delaru, Nimrod, Melanie, Sisay, Mikhail, Yohannes, Ibrahim, Mohammed(s) etc. that I have worked side by side with for the last year to provide them with homes. My home church has had numerous black pastors fill the pulpit, hosted homeless families, has one black pastor, and we are working on increasing the number of black members. We are also in the process of expanding out partnership with the Perkins Center in Jackson MS, and securing John Perkins for a "resident scholar" gig. Not to mention the hispanics and others. So Dan, I hope I pass. Now why do we not hear you extoll some of the black preaches I mentioned. I must say this is pretty low even for you Dan.
It was reasonable to wonder if anyone raising the criticism had any experience in the black church tradition.
So tell me, allmighty bubba, I thought I was defending a brother in Christ, out of love of Christ and for my Lord and savior by whose grace I am saved.
I thought I prayerfully considered Wright's position and studied the Bible to know what it has to say to better know the Lord and God's Ways and listened to the complaints raised by others and raised my own complaints about Christ - all in an effort to be pleasing to Jesus; for Jesus' sake.
So, please tell me o holy bubba, for whose sake DID I do that? You have told me that I am wrong in all my suppositions - so, tell me in your perfect knowledge: For whose sake did I do that?
For whose sake has Wright dedicated his life to ministry, to feeding the poor and tending the ill and preaching the Word?
Tell us, please, so we can benefit from your perfect ways.
Get a life, people. Lighten up. Laugh. Praise the Lord and share some grace.
For whose sake am I living? I thought I was striving by God's grace to follow in Jesus' steps, but mighty bubba has informed me of my error.
I just need some guidance from his holiness to for whose sake I've been living and loving. Is that asking too much, your goddess?
If I was a bit harsh I apologize, but come on, to assume that anyone who questions your credentials can't know what you are talking about is ludicrous. My question was (just so we are being accurate) was: "Why do a bunch of white progressives get to decide what "the black church" is." Instead of answering, you threw down. You have decided that you are the arbiter of what the black church is, I asked you (quite reasonably) what you male of some other black church leaders, and you start the contest. You asked, I answered. So I guess I now have credibility (in your eyes) to address the issue. There is a reason why Paul Farmer uses the term WL's (white liberals) as a perjorative. Dan you need to lighten up.
Craig
It is and has always been about Wright's racist theology and his hateful, slanderous rhetoric, which you continue to defend and excuse in numerous ways, even now with your ridiculous attempt to sidestep the issue.
Wright's theology is racist, as indicated by the works of the founder of black liberation theology, James H. Cone: Wright explicitly invokes Cone's doctrine as fundamental to Trinity UCC, and Cone points to Trinity as an exemplar of his theology which, writes Cone, is "a theology which confronts white society as the racist Antichrist."
Wright's rhetoric is hate-mongering. There is no moral justification for diminishing or whitewashing the accusation that the U.S. government created AIDS as an act of attempted genocide. It is wrong to rape and wrong to falsely accuse a man of rape; likewise, attempted genocide is a despicable evil, but so too is the false accusation of it.
And your defense of Wright is embarrassing. It's not true that his comments were taken out of context or are rare and inconsequential elements of his larger message: the works of black liberation theology disprove that; Obama's own description of the first Wright sermon he heard disproves that; the contents of Trinity UCC's Trumpet magazine disprove that; the jubilant reaction of the congregation to Wright's bile disproves that; and Wright's recent comments in Washington disprove that. Your only complaint about his rhetoric isn't that it's dishonest -- it's not that you have a problem with slanderous conspiracy theories per se -- but that it's detrimental to the cause of justice (sorry, Justice). And you continue to try to change the subject by making the issue Wright's charitable works and not his uncharitable beliefs and words.
I honestly have no real clue for whose sake Wright promotes such disgusting ideas, and I have no real clue for whose sake you defend him. You seem determined to insist that it's all for Christ's sake.
To that I can only stand amazed at either the possibility that you're sincere or the possibility that you think such a position is a remotely credible lie.
When Wright preaches the Word, he adds a distorted theology that can only be called racist: do you really have the nerve to suggest that he's preaching bigotry from the pulpit for the sake of the One who came to save the whole world, so that there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile?
When Wright reaches out to help the poor, he tells them that their plight is at least partially the result of a genocidal government that is systematically oppressing and even trying to kill all people of color: do you really have the gall to say that such evil, slanderous lies are being disseminated for the sake of the One who is the Truth?
And when you defend and excuse this man's bigotry and slander by attacking those who criticize him -- and doing so in the worst possible accusations of "lynching" and "crucifying;" so much for your love for your brothers in Christ -- by lying about his beliefs and his sermons, and by acting as if none of this matters so long as he sponsors a soup kitchen: do you honestly expect us to believe that you're doing the Lord's work?
Can you honestly believe that yourself?
Again, I'm not omniscient, I'm not perfect, and I'm not divine, but I make no claim to be and I don't need to make any such claim in order to see the gross disconnect between the teachings of Christ and your behavior in this particular situation.
I am NOT questioning Wright's salvation or yours, because I truly don't know people's hearts, but I do know that those of us who are saved don't automatically and permanently stop sinning.
Wright's bigotry is sinful. Wright's slanderous rhetoric is sinful. And your excusing both is sinful.
I don't know what else you do in other situations, and I don't know for whose sake you do those things, but I do know that no one can willfully sin for the sake of Jesus Christ.
If you pray and read the Bible for Jesus' sake, good for you. If you serve your church and help your neighbor, good for you. But if you think all that excuses willful, flagrant rebellion in other areas of your life -- if you think doing good deeds means you're incapable of behaving selfishly and wickedly -- then perhaps your disgusting behavior here is only a symptom to a much deeper malady.
Next: there appears to be a lot of ground to cover so I'll look and respond by individual.
First up: Dan
Nice quotes from Jeremiah Wright. Can't argue. Won't.
But here's one line Barack should take to heart and stop blaming everyone but himself for what his detractors have to say about his judgment...
"We make choices and we engage in behaviors--tell your neighbor: Our choices have consequences."
That's right: Make your bed, and sooner or later you'll lie in it.
Barack chose to associate with a known unrepentant terrorist. The same terrorist who initiated Barack's first campaign run for the Illinois state senate. A man he is friendly with, whatever Barack now says to the contrary.
Barack chose to vote against partial birth abortion, and the Born Alive Protections Act. Barack chose to have business dealing with Resko(sp?). Barack chose to align himself with a controversial pastor who, from the pulpit given him by God (assuming he is saved), tells lies, distorts the Gospels, and blasphemes the name of the Lord.
Barack now wants to "digitally lynch" everyone who disagrees with him with the epithet above their heads... "Racist"
Next. You said: "Rumor-mongering? Name-calling? Tearing down brothers and sisters in Christ?"
Honest criticism of Obama and Wright is not tearing down brothers and sisters in Christ. Is Pastor Manning harsh? Sure is. Harsher than Wright? I don't think so. Besides which, I honestly [and by "honestly" I mean scripturally (1 Jn 4:1)] have to question ANY man's claim to faith who uses the Lord's name in vain from the pulpit... who tells lies from the pulpit. And I have to question ANY man who, claiming to be Christian, supports by virtue of standing against, banning partial birth abortion and who is so heartless to the children who survive abortion that he voted against a measure that would protect them once outside of the womb. As for Oprah... perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but she is NOT a Christian no matter WHAT she says. She is preaching a new gospel... one that says Christ is NOT the way, the TRUTH, and the LIFE... She is officially deep in the realms of heresy, and NO ONE who has the Spirit of God dwelling in them can "slip" so heinously into heresy. I just don't believe it. Convince me otherwise, if you can.
Next. I live in a predominantly black neighborhood. I'm not nervous about it. I don't hate or even fear my black neighbors. Would I prefer a neighborhood where police aren't always arresting someone? Sure. Would I feel more comfortable in a neighborhood where I wasn't the rare white-face? Sure. Do I understand poverty and the struggle my neighbors endure? Not as intimately as they, but then I have a much better command of the English and a better work ethic than many I see around me. That's not bravado, it's just the way it is. But I agree with Bubba on this-- I shouldn't have to prove my bona fide's in this regard. It cheapens the debate.
Next. The context of Wright's comments are clear. He despises white America, however much he welcomes them to his church or feeds them in the soup line. And his antics at the PressClub thingy hammers home the charges against him as well as the context of his own racist comments.
Next.
Our black brothers and sisters vote for many reasons."
Yes, but Obama has some 95% of the vote because he's black, and as far as racism goes, it's reprehensible that Obama staffers should call out "We need more white people!" when trying to fill out the stage behind him... actually asking blacks and Asians to move so people at home can see white faces supporting Obama. Who's playing race? the Obama camp. Why? because of the reality that his rallies are predominantly black, and he can't afford to be who he is [a black man] or afford the nation seeing a sea of black faces behind him.
Next. As to my statement that 'white progressives (and Dan in particular) don't know what a "black church" look[s] like.' It had nothing to do with a "pissing contest" and everything to do with the tripe coming from progressives "like" you [if not expressly "you"], that black prophetic preaching is a "tradition" within the black church. Well, not precisely. Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream. It can be found in 5% or less of black churches in America. Yes, it may be a tradition for some few, but it is a tradition of men... Pharisaical... and not even remotely Christian. Progressives have jumped on this "black church tradition" nonsense and routinely use it as a gotcha argument, followed closely by the already trite "how many black people do YOU know?" argument. It's dishonest on both fronts.
Lastly. Yes Dan, there are people more holy than you. More holy than me. More holy than Bubba. Whomever. We who are saved by God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ are not all equally holy. We are all equally made righteous in HIM, but we are not all at the same level of holiness. You mustn't act so peevish and condescendingly toward Bubba and Mom. It's churlish, childish, and just plain rude.
Next up: Bent
"political myrmidon"... Good one, and I agree.
Your "logic trains" are an interesting addition. I wish it weren't so darned late, I'd have a go at them. But since it IS so darned late, I'll move to...
"of Muslim descent"... Sorry, no such animal. Muslims do indeed consider themselves "Muslim" at birth, but it is not a genetic descent. Neither, really, are Jews today. We call it "antisemitism" and we consider it racist, but really, race is not at issue. Religion is.
Next up: Craig
"the "black church" world wide bears little or no relationship to Dan's favorites. Why do a bunch of white progressives get to decide what "the black church" is."
Amen. Why is that? Because it allows progressives to strike back at "racist" Obama detractors.
"So Dan, I hope I pass."
I really hope that was sarcasm. Dan is not the final arbiter of who is and who is not "down enough" with the black man's struggle to be able to justifiably criticize black preachers who blaspheme from the pulpit. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" shall enter in.
Next up: Mom
"Dan, Grow up!" Agreed. He is usually in far better control than this thread might suggest.
Next up: Bubba
What can I say? I admire your patient tenacity. How you manage to stay focused on the issues is just short of heroic. As I have yet to discover anything you've said to be contradictory to what I believe, all I can really add is a hearty...
Amen! And thank you for your input.
Last up: Neil
It's not so much that Dan believes you have so low an opinion of our black brothers and sisters as it is Dan has so high an opinion of our black brothers and sisters. It's a matter of perception-- the glass being full or half empty. Neither is wrong, per se, yet both can denote a certain measure of blindness to the human condition. It's not so much that the glass is either full or half full, but rather that the glass is "Fully Half Empty"...
A pragmatist's solution. But then, that's just MY opinion.
------------------
Sorry everyone for not being available today. I worked this morning and had a rare afternoon off at the station. I chose to spend that afternoon with my girlfriend. Lunch at Chili's, then to Iron Man (pretty cool movie btw). And now it's almost 2am, and I have 2 jobs to go to in under 6 hours.
I honestly have no real clue for whose sake Wright promotes such disgusting ideas, and I have no real clue for whose sake you defend him. You seem determined to insist that it's all for Christ's sake.
On this much, we agree. Thank you.
You can take me at my word that I don't defend brothers in Christ (only to also be attacked) for the joy of being attacked, or for the joy of stirring things up or for any other reason than the Love of Christ.
Disagree with my reasoning if you will but you can touch my intent. Nor Reverend Wright's.
Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream. It can be found in 5% or less of black churches in America. Yes, it may be a tradition for some few, but it is a tradition of men... Pharisaical... and not even remotely Christian.
Says you. I disagree with BLT/LT in many regards but it is more Christian and more biblical than 90% of mainstream US churches - in my estimation. Feel free to disagree. That is my opinion based on 45 years of life, church and prayerful Bible study.
Obama has some 95% of the vote because he's black
Statements like this come across as racist. To answer your original question. I don't know your intent for making such a baseless claim, but it sounds racist.
Thanks for the dialog, y'all. Peace.
1 John 4:7-8
In explaination, I am one of those folks who thinks that sarcasm got left out of the list of spiritual gifts. I also realize that sometimes it doesn't translate well in this medium. But I press on anyway.
Actually, it bothers me to have to "prove my bona fides" so to speak on this issue. But it seems as though most progressive bloggers tend to prejudge those who disagree with them, and it is sometimes necessary.
I actually thought it would be kind of fully to see what Dan's response would be if I said I was black (I'm not, but it could have been amusing).
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there is very little about me of which Dan would approve, and I'm ok with that.
Good blog, by the way, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts.
"In other words, talk about his policies all day long in lucid terms and you're fine."
We're waiting for Obama supporters to do this as well, Dan. By the way, what are his policies?
I find it dishonest to suggest that with 95% of blacks supporting Obama that race doesn't enter into the support. Of course it does. It's unfortunate, but it's a plain and simple fact, just as there are some whites who wouldn't vote for him if his color was the ONLY thing that was different. To put it another way, it is racist to suggest that it's racist to suggest that racism might compell some people to vote for those of their own color. Are ALL blacks supporting him because of his race? Of course not, but those that aren't don't know why they're supporting him anymore than whites who support him do.
Just to be specific, Barry isn't black. He's half black and half white. I don't like either half. I would no more vote for his white half than his black half, because the whole is wholey unthinkable as president of these here United States of America. One area where he may succeed, however, is to finish as the worst prez since Jimma Carter.
I think that it is true that you just have absolutely no idea of how racist and ignorant (as in, "not knowing nothing" about a topic) you sound and so you continue to say "WHAT racism? I just don't like that black Muslim Marxist or all those idiotic blacks who vote for him because he's black! They're so dumb and they hate America!
...WHY WON'T THEY VOTE FOR US????"
Send me a letter with a return envelope, I'll stick a dollar in and you can buy a clue. But then, you have to be willing to read the clue.
Peace.
Okay, let's put this twist of reality to death.
Go to McCain's website and look at the Issues link. There are 12 links there, one of which is a link to his speeches and one is another link to "On the Issues". So McCain gives some detail to 10 topics, including:
Economic plan
Healthcare
Iraq
Human dignity
Veterans
Border Security
Ethics Reform
Nat'l Security
Environment
2nd Amendment
Obama, on the other hand, under HIS Issues link has 23 issues he gives information about.
Now, let's look at the depth with which the candidates cover these topics. I won't bore you with a detailed study into each of them, I just picked McCain's first topic: Economics.
McCain's economics plan page has 6 pages of text and big pictures.
Obama's economics plan page has 7 pages of text and ONE small picture and one larger graphic.
Fair enough, about the same. BUT, Obama has at the bottom of his page (and I believe on EACH of his 23 topics he gives detailed plans on), a link to an EVEN MORE detailed plan, if you want to read more about it.
On the Economics link page, at the bottom, Obama lists "for more info" and gives links to THREE more documents: His overall economic plan, his plan for small businesses and his plan for the home mortgage crisis.
So, having driven a stake through that beast's heart, let's lay to rest the "He has no plan" BS, unless you're going to spend twice as much time criticizing McCain for having not even a THIRD (at a guess) of the detailed info about his plan that Obama has.
You need never repeat that twisted truth again, Marshall.
You're welcome.
[Facts, they're really helpful things.]
I sure wonder. Abortion kills more blacks in a week (or maybe even a day) than the KKK ever dreamed of - and the KKK is pro-life! Abortion kills blacks at 3x the rate of whites, yet no one cries racism. Simply unbelievable. That issue alone should end the debate. Margaret Sanger's eugenicist dreams have come true.
Blacks tend to be more supportive of school choice (there's that word!), less gun control and other conservative positions.
Bush appointed highly qualified black people to higher levels than ever before, unlike token appointments made by others, yet Dems are perceived as more pro-black? Give me a break.
Black "leaders" who play the perpetual victim card and the complicit media don't help matters.
Maybe then you'd know and you'd quit committing some of the offenses found on this very page where you're asking, "but why???"
You don't have to agree in order to listen and learn, you know.
Cute fallacy. Dan listens, and we don't. Check. That was a good way to get back the point of Eric's post.
That's an interesting perspective 4simpsons. I think you don't look far enough back though. For many low-income people abortion isn't a genocidal/eugenics problem. Abortion to low-income blacks is an answer to the problem of underage sex, unplanned pregnancies, and low-income itself.
Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers want to reduce the number of abortions. Pro-lifers just believe criminalizing the act will make them stop. The fact is that each abortion is an unwanted pregnancy. Those don't just stop happening because women can't get abortions anymore.
So to the issue of race. If republicans wanted to realistically address this issue for blacks then they'd talk about family planning in urban areas, condom distribution, sex-education that doesn't just focus on abstinence, parental responsibility.
As long as conservative thought is "We're gonna criminalize one of the answers to a black social problem." Then I don't think you'll get much traction in the black community.
Do you even read all of the comment before responding? No one claimed that you didn't listen, you assumed that we hadn't.
"Abortion to low-income blacks is an answer to the problem of underage sex, unplanned pregnancies, and low-income itself."
Uh, maybe. I think those are often the answer for whites who want abortions as well. The question is whether it should be a legal answer. We don't accept those as reasons to kill toddlers, so the only question is whether the unborn are human beings (they are).
"Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers want to reduce the number of abortions. Pro-lifers just believe criminalizing the act will make them stop. The fact is that each abortion is an unwanted pregnancy. Those don't just stop happening because women can't get abortions anymore."
Again, if people were murdering toddlers for the reasons of poverty and such would you say that should be legal since they'll do it anyway?
Also, abortions went up dramatically after Roe v. Wade (7x, I think, but I don't have the stats in front of me). There is a often a false correlation of "if legal then moral" (see gambling, "same sex marriage," etc.)
And don't worry about the coat hanger thing. Most women had abortions in doctors' offices pre-RvW ("Gee, you're cycle is off, let's do a D&C to get back on track . . .")
I came back here after you claimed at my site that I didn't respond to you here. That was your excuse for not taking me up on my challenge (beyond the lame article you picked from today's posting at AT). So, after having been disappointed so many times checking out the links of lefties, I will now check out what is sure to be one of the most painfully vacuous sites ever, that of Barry Obamanation. But understand this, the number of words or pictures does not have anything to do with presenting a plan. It's what the words say and how they are backed up by historical precedent that will convince the thinking individual. You'll be hearing from me.
But before I go, I'll say this: it is not racist to say that blacks who vote for Barry are stupid, because the same is true for whites or anyone else. And it is equally stupid to suggest that it is racist to suggest that there are blacks who are voting for him based on color. Of course there are. What freakin' world do you live it? There are women voting for Hillary because of her gender. There are white people voting for McCain or Hillary because neither is black. This is a fact. How many are like this? How should I know. But I'm not naive to think that it isn't so, and I'm not dishonest enought to believe that those that support my candidate, if I had one, would be none but the most noble and most highly intelligent and informed. It would be fabulous to know your formula for determining when to have faith in the people and when not. I guess as long as the people aren't right of center or corporate heads, then all is perfect. What a loon.
Ahh, but that was not the claim. Of course there is likely some percentage of people voting for candidates because of their color or gender. But the accusation was that some great majority (I believe 95% was the number claimed - with no proof, of course) of blacks vote for him because he is black. THAT is what gets into the racism category, or at least sounding racist.
Do you think it fair to say that 95% of whites have been voting for white folk all these years BECAUSE they're white? I mean, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? That explains the scarcity of black representatives, right?
Is that a racist comment to make? Any time you claim "95% of black folk will vote for him because he's black," "95% of Mexicans will vote for her because she cooks a mean tortilla," "95% of white folk will vote for their dog because it's a white dog..." whatever unfounded generalization you make about a group of people is getting into the category of stereotyping and at least bordering on racism. By definition.
Neil said, "Cute fallacy. Dan listens, and we don't. Check. That was a good way to get back the point of Eric's post."
Note that I never claimed that Dan didn't listen. I just pointed out that it was false to say we don't.
How does Dan respond?
"And where exactly have I failed to listen"
This is exhibit A in how to waste time blogging.
Done.
It's a waste of time and I'm glad to see that you're giving it up.
Who gets to decide what "Parental responsibility" means, BenT?
The godless immoral left? The folks who think that the solution to their "problem" is to MURDER the innocent?
Republicans speaking about new initiatives to strengthen families would be a good dialog with the black community. Isn't that what we were discussing.
Where conservatives fall down is when they use crime issues. Huge majorities of black americans spend time in prison. So when republicans say they're gonna crack down even harder...
About that command, I do wonder why you invoke I John 4:7-8...
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
...when you have revealed in the past that you have a very low view of the theology that we find, among many other passages, in 4:9-11:
God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another.
You reject the theology of the atonement as irrelevant, as something that "meant something" to the Jews and which implicitly means nothing to you.
You discard so much of the Bible as atrocities, errors, and irrelevancies, it's amazing you ever feel confident citing the Bible at all, but this is an especially egregious example: you very rarely go so far as to cite an ethical command that is directly premised on a theological doctrine that you deny.
I'd say that is pretty obvious.
You are an expert, Dan, in distorting God's Word.
Bullsh*t!
Liberals want government to DICTATE parents' involvement in school activities.
Let's be honest, BenT.
If liberals wanted parents to be more involved in school activities, they'd listen to the vast numbers of parents who think that political-correctness is killing the learning environment.
Go ahead, BenT...finish your statement.
Here, I'll do it for you:
"...then liberals cry 'racism'!"