[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit: Nah, see, I actually go to a church fairly represenative of the population. And see, we wouldn’t tolerate some racial bomb thrower. I don’t know, maybe my congregation has more class, and is actually more interested in moving foward, together.
Let me guess…you and your pastor are both white?[/quote]
Nope, not all of them. Priests (plural) carry out the services.
Edit: But, I am white. As if that matters.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Nope, not all of them. Priests (plural) carry out the services.
Edit: But, I am white. As if that matters.[/quote]
Of course that matters. Your priests can’t be slamming White America when Whites are in the audience, now can they?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Nope, not all of them. Priests (plural) carry out the services.
Edit: But, I am white. As if that matters.
Of course that matters. Your priests can’t be slamming White America when Whites are in the audience, now can they?[/quote]
Ok…not sure if you’re serious, or just making a joke.
Of course you can - and what do you do about it?
Also, I read two other perspectives that gave me pause.
Missing here, I think, is an explicit acknowledgment that Wright is not merely expressing the anger he feels but that he is leading people into anger, keeping anger fresh and alive.
and
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjFkMDgzN2IwZGE0NWZlY2FmZWEwYzc1YjdjOThjNTc=
[i]To the best of our knowledge, week after week… Obama took his daughters there.
Maybe Barack Obama could separate Wright’s truly repugnant comments from the rest of what he preached. Maybe while offering no word of rebuke for his pastor, Obama was thinking, “there goes Jeremiah again.” Barack and Michelle have sufficiently developed minds to evalutate Wright’s claims - the government created the AIDS virus, etc. - for themselves. They could separate, as Obama put it, Wright’s “profoundly distorted view of this country” from his words “about our obligations to love one another.”
But could his daughters?
They’re currently age seven and nine. They have, presumably, been attending Trinity United Church of Christ regularly, or at least as regularly as Obama.
Can you imagine any circumstance in which you voluntarily and regularly take your children to listen to words that are “divisive,” “racially charged,” exposing them to “a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel,” and so on? Would you ever take your children to listen to a man call for God to damn America?
As a new dad, I can’t imagine it.
Sorry, Barack. That’s a bridge too far.[/i]
A few thoughts on the speech:
It was a well-delivered speech. Of course, Obama’s problem is not that he doesn’t speak well - this was as predicted. It really doesn’t help him.
Obama’s speech was not any different than his posture a day or two ago. He won’t outrightly repudiate a racist crackpot, but he wants to suggest that he doesn’t share his views just enough to get some political breathing room.
Obama made a huge mistake by characterizing the Pastor’s statements as “jarring to the untrained” ear - as if to say, “I know what it sounds like to someone who isn’t in the know, but that’s because you just don’t get it”. Trying to assuage concerned voters by telling them “it’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand” isn’t going to cut it, especially as it pertains to a general election.
If Obama, during his adult life, has never done anything to change or even confront a pastor’s and a church’s way of thinking that he finds problematic, how in the hell does he expect to accomplish that for a nation?
I don’t know that he helped himself with moderate Democrats who exercised concerns about Obama’s candidacy.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
So, for me, I’m supposed to give Obama a pass on this - this being what seem to me to be anti-white and anti-American tenants of black liberation theology - because I am supposed to assume he’s insincere about this religion? That’s the “Obama as opportunist” theory, and I think it’s actually not only plausible, but probable. But that undercuts the whole “Obama as Messiah of Change” thing.
…
Even if he is insincere about it (which I am sure he is) I am still troubled he would spend 20 years of his life listening to a racist firebrand.[/quote]
I am guessing he did see this 20 years ago, did you not ever have a friend, teacher or parent that you loved but did not agree with.
He referred to the leader of the free world has more people incarcerated than any other country, I agree with that and I have heard a lot of Tnationers refer to the lost war on drugs.
Bombing Hiroshima saved thousands of American lives, but I can not say that it was the right thing to do. The figures go from 65,000 to 200.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima
He is not the only person I have heard that thinks we are sponsoring Terrorism against Palestine.
I am not saying he was right about anything. I am saying is every one sounds so fragile and hypocritical.
He is old school black; I have to say his opinions hold some water. Judging every one I knew in the sixties by today�??s standards, every one would be a racist.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
So, for me, I’m supposed to give Obama a pass on this - this being what seem to me to be anti-white and anti-American tenants of black liberation theology - because I am supposed to assume he’s insincere about this religion? That’s the “Obama as opportunist” theory, and I think it’s actually not only plausible, but probable. But that undercuts the whole “Obama as Messiah of Change” thing.
…
Even if he is insincere about it (which I am sure he is) I am still troubled he would spend 20 years of his life listening to a racist firebrand.
I am guessing he did see this 20 years ago, did you not ever have a friend, teacher or parent that you loved but did not agree with.
He referred to the leader of the free world has more people incarcerated than any other country, I agree with that and I have heard a lot of Tnationers refer to the lost war on drugs.
Bombing Hiroshima saved thousands of American lives, but I can not say that it was the right thing to do. The figures go from 65,000 to 200.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima
He is not the only person I have heard that thinks we are sponsoring Terrorism against Palestine.
I am not saying he was right about anything. I am saying is every one sounds so fragile and hypocritical.
He is old school black; I have to say his opinions hold some water. Judging every one I knew in the sixties by today�??s standards, every one would be a racist.
[/quote]
Well said. 20 years ago this country was a different place. If I had a friend from 20 years ago, I am sure there would be many things I don’t agree with them on. That doesn’t mean they haven’t earned my trust as an individual.
Those arguing he should cut all ties to every friend he ever had if they ever said anything that could be used against him are ridiculous. Those who actually believe this preacher is spending every service talking about what seems to be hitting the media have also bought into the spin machine hook, line and sinker.
I hope those of you with family members or friends who have ever said anything that could be seen as even partially racist ended that relationship immediately. If not, please pass the hypocrisy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gee, it is “jarring to the untrained ear” since I doubt most blacks who have been in churches like that would be surprised by it at all and damn sure wouldn’t waste the energy to walk out simply because the preacher said, “Jesus was a black man who was killed by white men” or anything similar. Maybe you should actually try considering that your view point isn’t the only right one.
There are a lot of black Americans in this country who are still pissed off by injustice they experienced in their own life times. It has little to nothing to do with slavery which seems to be the only major event the rest of the country acknowledges. Any older black person I speak with on a personal basis who held those feelings or emotions would get an open ear from me. I would not run screaming from the room if some 60 year old woman described what she went through and made some comment that some conservative white guy may just accidentally take offense to.
You obviously would of course.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
So, for me, I’m supposed to give Obama a pass on this - this being what seem to me to be anti-white and anti-American tenants of black liberation theology - because I am supposed to assume he’s insincere about this religion? That’s the “Obama as opportunist” theory, and I think it’s actually not only plausible, but probable. But that undercuts the whole “Obama as Messiah of Change” thing.
…
Even if he is insincere about it (which I am sure he is) I am still troubled he would spend 20 years of his life listening to a racist firebrand.
I am guessing he did see this 20 years ago, did you not ever have a friend, teacher or parent that you loved but did not agree with.
He referred to the leader of the free world has more people incarcerated than any other country, I agree with that and I have heard a lot of Tnationers refer to the lost war on drugs.
Bombing Hiroshima saved thousands of American lives, but I can not say that it was the right thing to do. The figures go from 65,000 to 200.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima
He is not the only person I have heard that thinks we are sponsoring Terrorism against Palestine.
I am not saying he was right about anything. I am saying is every one sounds so fragile and hypocritical.
He is old school black; I have to say his opinions hold some water. Judging every one I knew in the sixties by today�??s standards, every one would be a racist.
Well said. 20 years ago this country was a different place. If I had a friend from 20 years ago, I am sure there would be many things I don’t agree with them on. That doesn’t mean they haven’t earned my trust as an individual.
Those arguing he should cut all ties to every friend he ever had if they ever said anything that could be used against him are ridiculous. Those who actually believe this preacher is spending every service talking about what seems to be hitting the media have also bought into the spin machine hook, line and sinker.
I hope those of you with family members or friends who have ever said anything that could be seen as even partially racist ended that relationship immediately. If not, please pass the hypocrisy.
[/quote]
This avoids the point that this is what he’s teaching now (or was, until he retired in the last year or so), and what he taught 20 years ago. The objectionable parts of what he has said are central ideas - and not just central to him, but central to the whole claimed point of the relationship, which is the religious theology. It’s what he said - not just the way he said it. And it was the underlying theological background from the sources he cited.
I still think it’s likely Obama is insincere about his religion, and joined this church as part of some political positioning.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
So, for me, I’m supposed to give Obama a pass on this - this being what seem to me to be anti-white and anti-American tenants of black liberation theology - because I am supposed to assume he’s insincere about this religion? That’s the “Obama as opportunist” theory, and I think it’s actually not only plausible, but probable. But that undercuts the whole “Obama as Messiah of Change” thing.
…
Even if he is insincere about it (which I am sure he is) I am still troubled he would spend 20 years of his life listening to a racist firebrand.
I am guessing he did see this 20 years ago, did you not ever have a friend, teacher or parent that you loved but did not agree with.
He referred to the leader of the free world has more people incarcerated than any other country, I agree with that and I have heard a lot of Tnationers refer to the lost war on drugs.
Bombing Hiroshima saved thousands of American lives, but I can not say that it was the right thing to do. The figures go from 65,000 to 200.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima
He is not the only person I have heard that thinks we are sponsoring Terrorism against Palestine.
I am not saying he was right about anything. I am saying is every one sounds so fragile and hypocritical.
He is old school black; I have to say his opinions hold some water. Judging every one I knew in the sixties by today�??s standards, every one would be a racist.
Well said. 20 years ago this country was a different place. If I had a friend from 20 years ago, I am sure there would be many things I don’t agree with them on. That doesn’t mean they haven’t earned my trust as an individual.
Those arguing he should cut all ties to every friend he ever had if they ever said anything that could be used against him are ridiculous. Those who actually believe this preacher is spending every service talking about what seems to be hitting the media have also bought into the spin machine hook, line and sinker.
I hope those of you with family members or friends who have ever said anything that could be seen as even partially racist ended that relationship immediately. If not, please pass the hypocrisy.
This avoids the point that this is what he’s teaching now (or was, until he retired in the last year or so), and what he taught 20 years ago. The objectionable parts of what he has said are central ideas - and not just central to him, but central to the whole claimed point of the relationship, which is the religious theology. It’s what he said - not just the way he said it. And it was the underlying theological background from the sources he cited.
I still think it’s likely Obama is insincere about his religion, and joined this church as part of some political positioning. [/quote]
What? Someone could call any one of us “insincere” about our religion if they put our every action and every statement under a microscope. It isn’t your place or anyone else’s to analyze or define any other man’s journey in spirituality. That is for him alone.
Honestly, what is wrong with some of you?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gee, it is “jarring to the untrained ear” since I doubt most blacks who have been in churches like that would be surprised by it at all and damn sure wouldn’t waste the energy to walk out simply because the preacher said, “Jesus was a black man who was killed by white men” or anything similar. Maybe you should actually try considering that your view point isn’t the only right one.[/quote]
I am always a little surprised as to why you bother responding to my posts.
At any rate, what you seem to be whining about - predictably - is that my opinion doesn’t match yours. Too bad.
The point I have been focusing on is how this plays out with the voters he may be losing because of his association with a racist crackpot.
As for your meaningless admonition - tell me, do you do a lot of practicing of considering that your viewpoint isn’t the only right one?
I am fully aware - I deal with them on a weekly basis through my work with a non-profit. Interestingly, their grievances never rise to the level of racist conspiracies or black liberation theologies rooted in destruction of whites.
But, then again, they have matured out of having their lives dominated by a persecution complex in search of attention. They have grievances, but reject the kind of nonsense spewed by the pastor that amounts of nothing more than a cultivation of hatred and revenge against white people.
No one is requesting that Obama “run from the room” in an isolated incident - what they are questioning is Obama’s depth of a relationship over a 20 year period. He could have sat through a number of services over the years and decided, “I just can’t get right with this way of thinking”, and phased himself out, politely, taking his impressionable children with him - instead, he attached himself root and leaf to Wright.
And he can do that if he wants to - that is his business. What matters is how this relationship lets the air out of his claim to be a national “healer” of racial wounds and a political “unifier”. Obama has built his entire campaign on this posture - now he looks like a fraud because his actions over 20 years suggest he is not as he has advertised himself.
That is why any of this matters - he is running for a national office.
Of course, apologists are speaking out of two mouths:
1/2 the time they are saying Wright’s comments aren’t that bad (see Obama’s “this is jarring to the untrained ear”)
the other 1/2 of the time they are saying Obama shouldn’t be tarred by the relationship because Obama can’t dissociate himself from everybody he disagrees with
So which is it? Is Wright not that bad? Or is he that bad, but Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for him? Can’t be both. We are getting two stories. It is a problem for Obama’s campaign. And Obama’s speech didn’t deal with that problem.
If Obama was half the champion of post-racialism he claims to be, he would have confronted the Church to change its ways. Obama is advertising himself as the type of person that speaks up and challenges the very kinds of thinking his Pastor endorses - and yet, his actions suggest the opposite. That is a problem.
I suspect you have little idea what I would or wouldn’t do, but rest assured, I don’t tolerate racism, whether it spews from the mouth of a white man or a black man.
And, as an aside, I have been in a church service when the sermon went against my grain, and I, in fact, walked out in the middle of it. It’s happened more than once, in fact. It doesn’t take a superhero to do that - just some integrity.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…
So, for me, I’m supposed to give Obama a pass on this - this being what seem to me to be anti-white and anti-American tenants of black liberation theology - because I am supposed to assume he’s insincere about this religion? That’s the “Obama as opportunist” theory, and I think it’s actually not only plausible, but probable. But that undercuts the whole “Obama as Messiah of Change” thing.
…
Even if he is insincere about it (which I am sure he is) I am still troubled he would spend 20 years of his life listening to a racist firebrand.
I am guessing he did see this 20 years ago, did you not ever have a friend, teacher or parent that you loved but did not agree with.
He referred to the leader of the free world has more people incarcerated than any other country, I agree with that and I have heard a lot of Tnationers refer to the lost war on drugs.
Bombing Hiroshima saved thousands of American lives, but I can not say that it was the right thing to do. The figures go from 65,000 to 200.000 Japanese killed in Hiroshima
He is not the only person I have heard that thinks we are sponsoring Terrorism against Palestine.
I am not saying he was right about anything. I am saying is every one sounds so fragile and hypocritical.
He is old school black; I have to say his opinions hold some water. Judging every one I knew in the sixties by today�??s standards, every one would be a racist.
Well said. 20 years ago this country was a different place. If I had a friend from 20 years ago, I am sure there would be many things I don’t agree with them on. That doesn’t mean they haven’t earned my trust as an individual.
Those arguing he should cut all ties to every friend he ever had if they ever said anything that could be used against him are ridiculous. Those who actually believe this preacher is spending every service talking about what seems to be hitting the media have also bought into the spin machine hook, line and sinker.
I hope those of you with family members or friends who have ever said anything that could be seen as even partially racist ended that relationship immediately. If not, please pass the hypocrisy.
This avoids the point that this is what he’s teaching now (or was, until he retired in the last year or so), and what he taught 20 years ago. The objectionable parts of what he has said are central ideas - and not just central to him, but central to the whole claimed point of the relationship, which is the religious theology. It’s what he said - not just the way he said it. And it was the underlying theological background from the sources he cited.
I still think it’s likely Obama is insincere about his religion, and joined this church as part of some political positioning. [/quote]
The only thing I could find objectionable is his cursing America, Out of curiosity how did you come to the conclusion that Obama lacks sincerity about his faith?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am always a little surprised as to why you bother responding to my posts.[/quote]
Why? I do charity work also.
[quote]
At any rate, what you seem to be whining about - predictably - is that my opinion doesn’t match yours. Too bad.
The point I have been focusing on is how this plays out with the voters he may be losing because of his association with a racist crackpot.
As for your meaningless admonition - tell me, do you do a lot of practicing of considering that your viewpoint isn’t the only right one? [/quote]
Yes, in issues that are simply “black and white” especially.
[quote]
There are a lot of black Americans in this country who are still pissed off by injustice they experienced in their own life times.
I am fully aware - I deal with them on a weekly basis through my work with a non-profit. Interestingly, their grievances never rise to the level of racist conspiracies or black liberation theologies rooted in destruction of whites.[/quote]
Where has this man stated he wants the destruction of white people? Could someone provide this quote?
[quote]
But, then again, they have matured out of having their lives dominated by a persecution complex in search of attention. They have grievances, but reject the kind of nonsense spewed by the pastor that amounts of nothing more than a cultivation of hatred and revenge against white people.[/quote]
They would likely also not discuss with you any of the details we are discussing here. In fact, if you are the type of person who actually does discuss politics randomly with people you meet, I have no doubt you aren’t well liked.
[quote]
No one is requesting that Obama “run from the room” in an isolated incident - what they are questioning is Obama’s depth of a relationship over a 20 year period. He could have sat through a number of services over the years and decided, “I just can’t get right with this way of thinking”, and phased himself out, politely, taking his impressionable children with him - instead, he attached himself root and leaf to Wright.
And he can do that if he wants to - that is his business. What matters is how this relationship lets the air out of his claim to be a national “healer” of racial wounds and a political “unifier”. Obama has built his entire campaign on this posture - now he looks like a fraud because his actions over 20 years suggest he is not as he has advertised himself.
That is why any of this matters - he is running for a national office.[/quote]
For someone who is not voting for him you sure are interested in “outing” the man. You aren’t even doing a good job, because in spite of it all, the man made every single poster here take a look at his delivery…and compliment him on it. I could care less about what is being advertised. What I do care about is the fact that this country needs a good spokesperson leading it, especially considering how most view President Bush’s…delivery.
Why do you think someone like that won’t be a “unifier”? You think some other candidate will do better in that regard?
If so, who?
[quote]
Of course, apologists are speaking out of two mouths:
1/2 the time they are saying Wright’s comments aren’t that bad (see Obama’s “this is jarring to the untrained ear”)
the other 1/2 of the time they are saying Obama shouldn’t be tarred by the relationship because Obama can’t dissociate himself from everybody he disagrees with
So which is it? Is Wright not that bad? Or is he that bad, but Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for him? Can’t be both. We are getting two stories. It is a problem for Obama’s campaign. And Obama’s speech didn’t deal with that problem.[/quote]
I have written many times that he isn’t that bad. I wouldn’t go to that pastor for medical advice, however but I fail to see why Obama is being taken to task on things he has not stated himself to anyone. Unless you can show that the man’s sermons had no value and that some of these comments were most of his message, I don’t expect Obama to end all ties and friendships.
In fact, don’t you think that at least some of this was anticipated? Are you saying you are close to no one who has ever stated anything remotely racist?
Please answer this.
[quote]
I suspect you have little idea what I would or wouldn’t do, but rest assured, I don’t tolerate racism, whether it spews from the mouth of a white man or a black man.
And, as an aside, I have been in a church service when the sermon went against my grain, and I, in fact, walked out in the middle of it. It’s happened more than once, in fact. It doesn’t take a superhero to do that - just some integrity.[/quote]
Wow. Good for you. Will that be one cookie or two?
Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright is offputting but in the end what does it mean for the country?
ABOSULTELY DICK SQUAT!
Is he going to appoint him secretary of FUCK THE WHITE MAN! Not likely.
Is Obama going to walk up on the stage January 20th, 2009 and say FUCK THE WHITE MAN! THE WHITE MAN GETS A 75% TAX INCREASE…BIAAAAAAOOOOTCHESSSS!!!
Again…not likely.
This is nothing more than another example of the politics of fear by a desperate Clinton campaign. If they were going to swing the big fear stick they should have done it in January when they still had a chance. They will need to win every remaining state by 70-80% to win the elected delegates. Unless Obama starts stumping wearing a turbin and a beard and praising Allah that ain’t gonna happen.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am always a little surprised as to why you bother responding to my posts.
Why? I do charity work also. [/quote]
Slam-dunk!
On Nov 4, the person that gets elected will do so on credibility, and that person will be John McCain. He has campaigned in a way that people can see that he is in control, and has not spent his time and energy pissing into the wind, which is what his democratic counterparts will be doing right up until Nov 4.
Obama has way too many questions surrounding his character, and he is simply too inexperienced to be leading this country. I hate to say it, but Hillary would be the better choice, because she has Bill in her corner, and he did a decent job while he was in office.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What? Someone could call any one of us “insincere” about our religion if they put our every action and every statement under a microscope. It isn’t your place or anyone else’s to analyze or define any other man’s journey in spirituality. That is for him alone.
Honestly, what is wrong with some of you?[/quote]
The other logical alternative is that he is sincere, and the central tenets of what he is sincere about are reflected in Wright’s teachings. Which do you prefer?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The only thing I could find objectionable is his cursing America, Out of curiosity how did you come to the conclusion that Obama lacks sincerity about his faith?
[/quote]
I find the gist of the excerpted part of this interpretation both plausible and probable:
But of course they’re right that it’ll hurt him electorally because Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc. The closest analogy would probably be to Hillary Clinton’s inconsistent accounting of where she’s from (bragging about midwestern roots when trying to win in Iowa, promptly forgetting those roots when explaining away a loss in Illinois, developing a sporadic affection for New York sports teams) – banal, mildly cynical shifts of association as context changes.
Mickey Kaus has some good observations on the Obama speech:
EXCERPT:
We Can’t Ignore Race, So Let’s Ignore Race: Some (tenative!) reactions to Obama’s somewhat arid talk–which a) probably advanced the discussion of racial issues, b) gave me a much better (and basically appealing) idea of where Obama is coming from, but c) didn’t particularly advance his case to be President–especially, I fear among doubting white, male, non-college, etc. voters