Obama's Pastor

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
841

[quote]Steel88 wrote:
I’ve had to sit through this being a hispanic whose family and friends openly admit to hating or not like black people or people of other races. Sometimes you have to sit through crap with some people because they still have good things to say. In my case my family doesn’t have much of value to say for me but if you look into Wright’s history you can see that he is a rather influential individual. I still think that he should have watched his mouth though, but, what he said won’t change my mind about Obama one bit because I see that he is being honest about pretty much everything he’s said so far.

Edit:

Being hispanic does not mean that we are the only ones going through these issues…but it doesn’t seem like this kind of disconnect with family and friends involving race and multiculturalism is as abundant in other demographics(Black, White, etc.)[/quote]

I’m actually surprised to hear that. I grew up in Houston, TX. Most of my “real” friends in high school were hispanic (one was Cuban, the others from Mexico). Until the latino gang issues in Cali lately, I was not aware of this hatred for blacks by hispanics. That makes very little sense to me considering I doubt you will find the same in the black community against hispanics aside from wondering why we have to speak spanish now in some parts of America.

I agree with your take on this situation because, like I wrote earlier, I doubt most of the people complaining the most are devoid of racist attitudes in their family or community of friends. I am also willing to bet they haven’t severed any friendships over it.

842

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Would you be saying this if it was McCain’s pastor who was a retard? I tend to reserve judgment until I hear Obama say racist shit like Wright, not guilt by association.

If we really believed in guilt by association, then we should put all politicians in jail as they all have associated with less than honest people.

[/quote]

I haven’t read this thread in awhile, and I’m not going to catch up, so if this has been addressed, my apologies.

It’s not a matter of a criminal conviction. It’s a matter of trying to look through the campaign rhetoric and slogans and figure out what are the underlying principles of the person for whom - or against whom - you would vote.

843

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Steel88 wrote:
I’ve had to sit through this being a hispanic whose family and friends openly admit to hating or not like black people or people of other races. Sometimes you have to sit through crap with some people because they still have good things to say. In my case my family doesn’t have much of value to say for me but if you look into Wright’s history you can see that he is a rather influential individual. I still think that he should have watched his mouth though, but, what he said won’t change my mind about Obama one bit because I see that he is being honest about pretty much everything he’s said so far.

Edit:

Being hispanic does not mean that we are the only ones going through these issues…but it doesn’t seem like this kind of disconnect with family and friends involving race and multiculturalism is as abundant in other demographics(Black, White, etc.)

I’m actually surprised to hear that. I grew up in Houston, TX. Most of my “real” friends in high school were hispanic (one was Cuban, the others from Mexico). Until the latino gang issues in Cali lately, I was not aware of this hatred for blacks by hispanics. That makes very little sense to me considering I doubt you will find the same in the black community against hispanics aside from wondering why we have to speak spanish now in some parts of America.

I agree with your take on this situation because, like I wrote earlier, I doubt most of the people complaining the most are devoid of racist attitudes in their family or community of friends. I am also willing to bet they haven’t severed any friendships over it.[/quote]

If there is one thing hispanics are good at(not all because thats just generalizing) it’s being two faced. It’s a little ridiculous sometimes but that sentiment isn’t as powerful as say…the ardent hate that White people had for people for all those hundreds of years, at least not anymore. With Dominicans I’d say its pretty apparent and it was a part of daily life for me in the Bronx where Dominican gangs constantly started crap with blacks, bloods, and crips. In terms of friends, I was in a similar situation like you(some of my coolest friends since middle school were black). It’s a lingering hate from back into the early 1900’s when they went so far as to start murdering Hatians in an effort to “clean” up the black mess. I’m surprised that you didn’t pick up on this sooner considering the hispanic movement going for Hillary in inexplicably high numbers for no apparent reason(at least blacks felt disenfranchised by Clinton). One thing I know for sure though is that with time most hispanics will grow out of that view, although I wish they never even had it in the first place because they’re influencing these elections in a big way and their idiocy is going to go down in history for all to see…

Edit:

The Dominican Republic page on wiki…

"Racial issues

As elsewhere in the Spanish Empire, the original Spanish colony of Hispaniola employed a social system known as casta, wherein Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Spain) occupied the highest echelon. These were followed, in descending order of status, by: criollos, castizos, mestizos, mulattoes, Indians, zambos, and lastly, black slaves.[54][55] The stigma of these social strata persisted for many years, reaching its culmination in the Trujillo regime, as the dictator used racial persecution and nationalistic fervor against Haitians.[56][30]

According to a study by the CUNY Dominican Studies Institute, about 90% of the contemporary Dominican population has some African ancestry.[57] However, most Dominicans self-identify as being of mixed-race rather than “black” in contrast to African identity movements in the United States. A variety of terms are used to represent a range of skintones; these include “morena” (brown), “india” (Indian), “blanca oscura” (dark white), and “trigueño” (wheat colored),[58] among others.

Many have claimed that this represents a reluctance to self-identify with African descent and the culture of the freed slaves. According to Dr. Miguel Anibal Perdomo, professor of Dominican Identity and Literature at Hunter College in New York City, “There was a sense of ‘deculturación’ among the African slaves of Hispaniola. [There was] an attempt to erase any vestiges of African culture from the Dominican Republic. We were, in some way, brainwashed and we’ve become westernized.”[59]

However, this view is not universal, as many also claim that Dominican culture is simply different and rejects the racial categorizations of other regions. Ramona Hernández, director of the Dominican Studies Institute at City College of New York asserts that the terms were originally an act of defiance in a time when being mulatto was stigmatized. “During the Trujillo regime, people who were dark skinned were rejected, so they created their own mechanism to fight it” She went on to explain “When you ask, ‘What are you?’ they don’t give you the answer you want . . . saying we don’t want to deal with our blackness is simply what you want to hear.” The Dominican Republic is not unique in this respect either. In a 1976 census survey conducted in Brazil, respondents described their skin color in 136 distinct terms".

844

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
therefore not be taken to task on what other blacks in his community are saying.

I agree…but did he have to sit there for 20 freaking years and listen to him?

Does that not bother you even a teensy bit?[/quote]

You are assuming that Wright talks crazy every Sunday and that everyone just loves it.

We don’t know if this is an occasional thing or a theme. So it is hard to say if Obama should have gone to another church or not. If Wright only talks crazy once in a while, I can perfectly understand why Obama would stay.

846

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You are assuming that Wright talks crazy every Sunday and that everyone just loves it.

We don’t know if this is an occasional thing or a theme. So it is hard to say if Obama should have gone to another church or not. If Wright only talks crazy once in a while, I can perfectly understand why Obama would stay.

[/quote]

You know, there’s a separate point here as well. In those clips of Wright doing his crazy talk, the congregation was cheering for him and yelling, exclaiming agreement, etc. That should give an indication of the general environment of this church, this pastor, and what Obama found there.

847

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You are assuming that Wright talks crazy every Sunday and that everyone just loves it.

We don’t know if this is an occasional thing or a theme. So it is hard to say if Obama should have gone to another church or not. If Wright only talks crazy once in a while, I can perfectly understand why Obama would stay.

You know, there’s a separate point here as well. In those clips of Wright doing his crazy talk, the congregation was cheering for him and yelling, exclaiming agreement, etc. That should give an indication of the general environment of this church, this pastor, and what Obama found there.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, I just don’t think that it is fair to expect blacks to change their behavior or drop their resentment for past poor treatment that quickly.

Until very recently a black person would not stand a chance in hell getting elected for president. MLK should show you what used to happen to blacks who pushed against the hate.

So now we are in 2008 and, in my opinion, things are much better racially.

So the scenario is; many racists have been beating on blacks for years. Now they all of a sudden stop and expect blacks to get up, dust themselves off, shake hands, smile and not hold a grudge. And the previous racist’s then act shocked when blacks do not want to let it go and play nice so quickly.

So are Wright and some of his congregation behind the times and off track? Absolutely! But, is it understandable that many, including Wright, still hold grudges? Absolutely!

So why is it a shock that Obama has not stopped going to this church? Remember, 20-30 years ago Wright would have been preaching the truth.

848

Obama has been/still is trying to portray himself as the post-racial candidate - which seems like a total fabrication after this. If he wants to support an agenda of dwelling on decades old racial grievances, that’s fine - but I want everyone to know it.

Also, this completely belies the whole “crazy uncle” line of excusing. The congregation obviously wasn’t surprised by the subject matter - and obviously agreed with the most egregious statements. Whatever it was Obama was getting out of this church, these attitudes were not a sometime, underlying thing or something of which he was unaware.

849

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Lorisco wrote:
You are assuming that Wright talks crazy every Sunday and that everyone just loves it.

We don’t know if this is an occasional thing or a theme. So it is hard to say if Obama should have gone to another church or not. If Wright only talks crazy once in a while, I can perfectly understand why Obama would stay.

BostonBarrister wrote:
You know, there’s a separate point here as well. In those clips of Wright doing his crazy talk, the congregation was cheering for him and yelling, exclaiming agreement, etc. That should give an indication of the general environment of this church, this pastor, and what Obama found there.

Lorisco wrote:
I understand what you are saying, I just don’t think that it is fair to expect blacks to change their behavior or drop their resentment for past poor treatment that quickly.

Until very recently a black person would not stand a chance in hell getting elected for president. MLK should show you what used to happen to blacks who pushed against the hate.

So now we are in 2008 and, in my opinion, things are much better racially.

So the scenario is; many racists have been beating on blacks for years. Now they all of a sudden stop and expect blacks to get up, dust themselves off, shake hands, smile and not hold a grudge. And the previous racist’s then act shocked when blacks do not want to let it go and play nice so quickly.

So are Wright and some of his congregation behind the times and off track? Absolutely! But, is it understandable that many, including Wright, still hold grudges? Absolutely!

So why is it a shock that Obama has not stopped going to this church? Remember, 20-30 years ago Wright would have been preaching the truth.

Obama has been/still is trying to portray himself as the post-racial candidate - which seems like a total fabrication after this. If he wants to support an agenda of dwelling on decades old racial grievances, that’s fine - but I want everyone to know it.

Also, this completely belies the whole “crazy uncle” line of excusing. The congregation obviously wasn’t surprised by the subject matter - and obviously agreed with the most egregious statements. Whatever it was Obama was getting out of this church, these attitudes were not a sometime, underlying thing or something of which he was unaware.[/quote]

I’m sorry, are you claiming it is even possible to be black, over the age of possibly 10 years and not be aware of the prevailing sentiments in the black community? WTF does “post-racial” even mean if none of society is in that state to begin with? Even if that is his goal, and it may very well be regardless of what you would like to think, it is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE to live life in this country as a minority and not deal with these issues head on. It is even more impossible to be in the spotlight as a minority and avoid them which is exactly what you seem to believe his stance should actually be.

What the fuck are you smoking?

Society as a whole is intently focused on race. That means even if his goal is to transcend this, there is no other place for him to be to attack this than right smack dab in the middle of it and affect it from the inside out.

You fail to even make sense on this one. How does one transcend these attitudes by ignoring them and avoiding them? Wouldn’t that make him the LEAST qualified to actually make a change in that area if he did?

What you seem to want is some black guy (yes, he is half white) who acts like he isn’t black at all and avoids any and all interaction with black people who have beliefs and opinions based on a very racist society.

A “post-racial” candidate would be someone who did NOT avoid these issues but dealt with them from BOTH SIDES and then brought people together from there. They would NOT be someone who avoided the issue completely yet expected to rise above that issue specifically…which is delusionally what you seem to think a “post-racial” candidate would be…someone who avoided the issue completely unless they only mentioned it from your own limited point of view.

Has this not even occurred to you?

I would guess not.

850

[quote]
Lorisco wrote:
You are assuming that Wright talks crazy every Sunday and that everyone just loves it.

We don’t know if this is an occasional thing or a theme. So it is hard to say if Obama should have gone to another church or not. If Wright only talks crazy once in a while, I can perfectly understand why Obama would stay.

BostonBarrister wrote:
You know, there’s a separate point here as well. In those clips of Wright doing his crazy talk, the congregation was cheering for him and yelling, exclaiming agreement, etc. That should give an indication of the general environment of this church, this pastor, and what Obama found there.

Lorisco wrote:
I understand what you are saying, I just don’t think that it is fair to expect blacks to change their behavior or drop their resentment for past poor treatment that quickly.

Until very recently a black person would not stand a chance in hell getting elected for president. MLK should show you what used to happen to blacks who pushed against the hate.

So now we are in 2008 and, in my opinion, things are much better racially.

So the scenario is; many racists have been beating on blacks for years. Now they all of a sudden stop and expect blacks to get up, dust themselves off, shake hands, smile and not hold a grudge. And the previous racist’s then act shocked when blacks do not want to let it go and play nice so quickly.

So are Wright and some of his congregation behind the times and off track? Absolutely! But, is it understandable that many, including Wright, still hold grudges? Absolutely!

So why is it a shock that Obama has not stopped going to this church? Remember, 20-30 years ago Wright would have been preaching the truth.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Obama has been/still is trying to portray himself as the post-racial candidate - which seems like a total fabrication after this. If he wants to support an agenda of dwelling on decades old racial grievances, that’s fine - but I want everyone to know it.

Also, this completely belies the whole “crazy uncle” line of excusing. The congregation obviously wasn’t surprised by the subject matter - and obviously agreed with the most egregious statements. Whatever it was Obama was getting out of this church, these attitudes were not a sometime, underlying thing or something of which he was unaware.

Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, are you claiming it is even possible to be black, over the age of possibly 10 years and not be aware of the prevailing sentiments in the black community? WTF does “post-racial” even mean if none of society is in that state to begin with? Even if that is his goal, and it may very well be regardless of what you would like to think, it is IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE to live life in this country as a minority and not deal with these issues head on. It is even more impossible to be in the spotlight as a minority and avoid them which is exactly what you seem to believe his stance should actually be.

What the fuck are you smoking?[/quote]

Irrespective of what his stance should be, that’s what his stance was/is. It’s not like Republicans or Hillary supporters made up the whole “post-racial candidate” meme for Barack. That’s how he and his campaign marketed him. And he’s not.

And voters should consider him based on what he is, not on what he claims to be. Do we know for certain? No. In fact, we know less about Barack than about someone who has been in the national spotlight for years - thus the focus on trying to get behind his empty campaign rhetoric and sloganeering and get to the principles of what he believes - because that’s what he would actually bring to the table as a President.

So, are voters ready to vote for an old-fashioned radical liberal who is also focused on racial issues and historical ills? That’s the end question, once we’ve established that’s what Barack likely is.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Society as a whole is intently focused on race. That means even if his goal is to transcend this, there is no other place for him to be to attack this than right smack dab in the middle of it and affect it from the inside out.[/quote]

Or he could lead by example of what he thinks the best course of action is - or even an attainable better course of action. There’s always that alternative. Of course, if he doesn’t believe moving to a point in which race is de-emphasized - a post-racial future, if you will - is a better alternative, jumping in the middle makes a lot of sense.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You fail to even make sense on this one. How does one transcend these attitudes by ignoring them and avoiding them? Wouldn’t that make him the LEAST qualified to actually make a change in that area if he did?[/quote]

You don’t transcend by ignoring problems you can address and make better. You also don’t transcend to the future by wallowing in the failed attitudes of the past.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What you seem to want is some black guy (yes, he is half white) who acts like he isn’t black at all and avoids any and all interaction with black people who have beliefs and opinions based on a very racist society. [/quote]

No need to avoid interaction - just avoid taking a mentee position to someone who preaches anti-American tripe, subscribes to a racist doctrine of religion, or a decades-long membership position in a congregation that wholeheartedly supports the same. Those attitudes fuel and exacerbate a racist society, and I don’t need to support someone who obviously supports positions that make things worse in the bizarre idea he will lead to making them better.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A “post-racial” candidate would be someone who did NOT avoid these issues but dealt with them from BOTH SIDES and then brought people together from there. They would NOT be someone who avoided the issue completely yet expected to rise above that issue specifically…which is delusionally what you seem to think a “post-racial” candidate would be…someone who avoided the issue completely unless they only mentioned it from your own limited point of view.

Has this not even occurred to you?

I would guess not.[/quote]

Of course a post-racial candidate would address both sides - that would generally mean getting in the middle, not wallowing in ideas that exacerbate the problem.

851

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Of course a post-racial candidate would address both sides - that would generally mean getting in the middle, not wallowing in ideas that exacerbate the problem.
[/quote]

When I was in high school, I went to a Catholic Church, a Methodist Church and a Buddhist Temple (that one was with some of my Asian friends at the time). The reason I did that at the time was because I had been raised Pentecostal and what never made any sense to me was the belief that any one religion or section of faith was going to heaven over another. I never read anything in The Bible stating that all Buddhists were going to hell specifically, or that Catholics were doing it wrong, or that Methodists would be first in line. It seemed backwards to me at the time for an entire world to be so divided based on religion when the entire concept should have been based on unity and peace.

All of that is why right now I find it hard to sit in one Baptist church, or one Methodist church. The current state of religion, even for Christians, seems to focus on our differences more than what brings us together. However, I had to see what the issue was for myself rather than listening to my parent’s opinions alone (something they were surprisingly open about).

It is that perspective from which I can COMPLETELY comprehend why Obama would stay in that church. If you could actually be open minded enough for even a second to avoid the search for everything negative to harp on simply because you are looking for reinforcement of your already made political choice, you just might be able to see that his actions weren’t much different than mine were in high school (I already know your argument will be the time spent to which I will reply that his focus could have possibly been on community as well which is based on the building of relationships).

There is no possible way to see both sides without actually COMING FROM both sides. Without actually sitting there as one with both sides, any opinion concerning the issue is lop-sided and untruthful…much like you pretending to even have a clue what a black man in America must still go through today.

You fault the man for it. I am letting you know that if you could accept it for a moment, that this could have been the smartest move someone who wanted to deeply understand both sides WOULD make.

But then, he’s a politician. He now has to lie just because the mass public can’t comprehend anything beyond their own point of view.

This is why I stopped watching so much news programming. For all of the insight you truly believe you have, why do you think a man like him is LESS intelligent than yourself?

852

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Of course a post-racial candidate would address both sides - that would generally mean getting in the middle, not wallowing in ideas that exacerbate the problem.

Professor X wrote:
When I was in high school, I went to a Catholic Church, a Methodist Church and a Buddhist Temple (that one was with some of my Asian friends at the time). The reason I did that at the time was because I had been raised Pentecostal and what never made any sense to me was the belief that any one religion or section of faith was going to heaven over another. I never read anything in The Bible stating that all Buddhists were going to hell specifically, or that Catholics were doing it wrong, or that Methodists would be first in line. It seemed backwards to me at the time for an entire world to be so divided based on religion when the entire concept should have been based on unity and peace.

All of that is why right now I find it hard to sit in one Baptist church, or one Methodist church. The current state of religion, even for Christians, seems to focus on our differences more than what brings us together. However, I had to see what the issue was for myself rather than listening to my parent’s opinions alone (something they were surprisingly open about).

It is that perspective from which I can COMPLETELY comprehend why Obama would stay in that church. If you could actually be open minded enough for even a second to avoid the search for everything negative to harp on simply because you are looking for reinforcement of your already made political choice, you just might be able to see that his actions weren’t much different than mine were in high school (I already know your argument will be the time spent to which I will reply that his focus could have possibly been on community as well which is based on the building of relationships).

There is no possible way to see both sides without actually COMING FROM both sides. Without actually sitting there as one with both sides, any opinion concerning the issue is lop-sided and untruthful…much like you pretending to even have a clue what a black man in America must still go through today.

You fault the man for it. I am letting you know that if you could accept it for a moment, that this could have been the smartest move someone who wanted to deeply understand both sides WOULD make.

But then, he’s a politician. He now has to lie just because the mass public can’t comprehend anything beyond their own point of view.

This is why I stopped watching so much news programming. For all of the insight you truly believe you have, why do you think a man like him is LESS intelligent than yourself?[/quote]

So he spends over 20 years learning the poisonous side - when exactly did he learn the other side?

853

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

So he spends over 20 years learning the poisonous side - when exactly did he learn the other side?[/quote]

Wow. Your thinking truly is limited on this. First, what makes you think 20 years of “poison” was even the issue (as if the preacher had nothing positive to say and spent 20 straight years talking about White America from his pulpit)?

Second, why can’t you understand that the very perspective that preacher had is shared by quite a few black Americans in this country, especially those around that age group?

Half of Obama’s family is white. Hell, I’m black and I already know your side. You are the one who seemed so in the dark about what blacks today deal with that you couldn’t comprehend someone walking into your office, ignoring your name on the door and assuming you weren’t a lawyer. Remember that discussion?

Your perspective isn’t the one being hidden in this country. No one is claiming your perspective is faulted and “seeing racism everywhere” like many of you tell us any time we mention it.

No one has to search for your point of view. We get heaping spoonfulls of it every day and night.

854

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

So he spends over 20 years learning the poisonous side - when exactly did he learn the other side?

Professor X wrote:
Wow. Your thinking truly is limited on this. First, what makes you think 20 years of “poison” was even the issue (as if the preacher had nothing positive to say and spent 20 straight years talking about White America from his pulpit)? Second, why can’t you understand that the very perspective that preacher had is shared by quite a few black Americans in this country, especially those around that age group?

Half of Obama’s family is white. Hell, I’m black and I already know your side. You are the one who seemed so in the dark about what blacks today deal with that you couldn’t comprehend someone walking into your office, ignoring your name on the door and assuming you weren’t a lawyer. Remember that discussion?

Your perspective isn’t the one being hidden in this country. No one is claiming your perspective is faulted and “seeing racism everywhere” like many of you tell us any time we mention it.

No one has to search for your point of view. We get heaping spoonfulls of it every day and night.[/quote]

I’m glad you’re so perceptive and that in your omniscience you know exactly what my perspective is - which, of course, is shared by all white people because it’s the White America™ perspective. If only we could all be as perspicacious and understanding I’m sure there would be no issues whatsoever…

Or maybe not.

At any rate, if that poisonous viewpoint is shared by a majority of blacks in this country, it may well be “IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE” to get to a post-racial candidate - not that Obama is one. It won’t happen until that attitude dies. You cannot have a post-racial environment if a significant group has a strong anti-other-race prejudice.

I don’t care if the preacher had anything positive to say - I don’t care if David Duke is an absolutely wonderful father who works with his community (and I have no idea if he is or isn’t - just a hypothetical example). Wright may not be as poisonous, but it’s the same family of toxins.

From what I’ve gleaned, Black Liberation Theology is radical-left-wing Marxist tripe, combined with anti-white virulence. Stellar combination for the ecumenical doctrine of the spiritual mentor of a presidential candidate.

And Barack dove in to that nest, succored there for two decades, marinating in that environment - and I’m supposed to just trust that he’s the post-racial messiah?

Your tangent aside, he obviously wasn’t just exploring viewpoints - and as far as I can tell from his life story, his positions, and everything about his campaign, he’s never immersed himself, even for any short period, trying to understand a post-racial position or perspective. So color me just a little skeptical.

As for someone walking into my office and assuming I’m not a lawyer, it would be 99.99% impossible - you’ve obviously not spent a lot of time in large law firms. I’ve yet to see another lawyer back your stance on that claim - and I’ve never, ever, heard of it happening in a big law firm. I invite any other person with experience in a big law firm to contradict me.

855

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m glad you’re so perceptive and that in your omniscience you know exactly what my perspective is - which, of course, is shared by all white people because it’s the White America™ perspective. If only we could all be as perspicacious and understanding I’m sure there would be no issues whatsoever…[/quote]

So, if your claim is that your perspective is not understood, why is it you seem to think you have one Rev Wright so well figured out as to assume what he was actually preaching for twenty whole years? Are you psychic? Like most people, you have taken bits and pieces and formed one large flat opinion of what one could even gain from a church service for two whole decades.

If you want your own individual opinion understood in detail, why can’t you afford others the same luxury?

[quote]

Or maybe not.

At any rate, if that poisonous viewpoint is shared by a majority of blacks in this country, it may well be “IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE” to get to a post-racial candidate - not that Obama is one. It won’t happen until that attitude dies. You cannot have a post-racial environment if a significant group has a strong anti-other-race prejudice. I don’t care if the preacher had anything positive to say - I don’t care if David Duke is an absolutely wonderful father who works with his community (and I have no idea if he is or isn’t - just a hypothetical example). Wright may not be as poisonous, but it’s the same family of toxins. From what I’ve gleaned, Black Liberation Theology is radical-left-wing Marxist tripe, combined with anti-white virulence. Stellar combination for the ecumenical doctrine of the spiritual mentor of a presidential candidate.[/quote]

I’m sorry, aside from what I personally disagree with when it comes to what he said about Italians, what exactly is so “poisonous” about what this man has been quoted as saying in regards to this country specifically? Parts about “White America”? The belief that our own government might be behind some rampant diseases (as if this never happened before)? That’s “poisonous”? Because you personally don’t like to hear it or because you think anyone who distrusts the government in that way is blatantly wrong? Because you think that no one should be upset about the centuries of obscene hatred for blacks in this country that transcends any other race as far as intensity in the history books save for maybe the American Indian?

Guess what, many of them are still pissed too.

You have picked apart what you care to and ignored any real message there. You assume that the rest of us listen blindly and can’t pick what we need to from ANY church service (I have yet to be in one that I didn’t disagree with SOMETHING said from the pulpit eventually). You refuse to see the difference in culture even when it is explained to you over and over.

[quote]
And Barack dove in to that nest, succored there for two decades, marinating in that environment - and I’m supposed to just trust that he’s the post-racial messiah? Your tangent aside, he obviously wasn’t just exploring viewpoints - and as far as I can tell from his life story, his positions, and everything about his campaign, he’s never immersed himself, even for any short period, trying to understand a post-racial position or perspective. So color me just a little skeptical.[/quote]

Oh, I color you more than just skeptical. I color you completely ignorant to any other perspective but your own. I color you elitist in that you truly believe my perspective is beneath your own, such that you have to inform me that I see “racism everywhere” if I so much as mention a circumstance where I’ve experienced it in my own life. There are quite a few colors for you. In fact, I’m running low.

[quote]
As for someone walking into my office and assuming I’m not a lawyer, it would be 99.99% impossible - you’ve obviously not spent a lot of time in large law firms. I’ve yet to see another lawyer back your stance on that claim - and I’ve never, ever, heard of it happening in a big law firm. I invite any other person with experience in a big law firm to contradict me.[/quote]

You’ve obviously not spent much time in dental offices. I doubt most white dentists have had too many other people degrade them or look down on them based on skin color in their profession or assume they couldn’t possibly be a professional and must be an assistant. You are effectively calling me a liar by acting as if this just could never happen even though I am telling you straight forward that it has. You actually believe my perspective is so beneath your own that I couldn’t possibly be seeing the truth and that you have to correct my vision for me.

Like many others, you are just fine ignoring the issues brought forward yet very quick to leap forward should someone use “White America” in a sentence. You see the situation through rose colored glasses and assume anyone with multi-colored vision to be blind and need your help as a seeing eye dog.

Why? Because from your perspective, that could simply never happen. No one could ever assume that you weren’t the professional you make yourself out to be based on skin color…because…well, you just haven’t experienced it!

One day you just might figure out that I have a point.

I honestly don’t give a shit at this point.

856

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Of course a post-racial candidate would address both sides - that would generally mean getting in the middle, not wallowing in ideas that exacerbate the problem.

Professor X wrote:
When I was in high school, I went to a Catholic Church, a Methodist Church and a Buddhist Temple (that one was with some of my Asian friends at the time). The reason I did that at the time was because I had been raised Pentecostal and what never made any sense to me was the belief that any one religion or section of faith was going to heaven over another. I never read anything in The Bible stating that all Buddhists were going to hell specifically, or that Catholics were doing it wrong, or that Methodists would be first in line. It seemed backwards to me at the time for an entire world to be so divided based on religion when the entire concept should have been based on unity and peace.

All of that is why right now I find it hard to sit in one Baptist church, or one Methodist church. The current state of religion, even for Christians, seems to focus on our differences more than what brings us together. However, I had to see what the issue was for myself rather than listening to my parent’s opinions alone (something they were surprisingly open about).

It is that perspective from which I can COMPLETELY comprehend why Obama would stay in that church. If you could actually be open minded enough for even a second to avoid the search for everything negative to harp on simply because you are looking for reinforcement of your already made political choice, you just might be able to see that his actions weren’t much different than mine were in high school (I already know your argument will be the time spent to which I will reply that his focus could have possibly been on community as well which is based on the building of relationships).

There is no possible way to see both sides without actually COMING FROM both sides. Without actually sitting there as one with both sides, any opinion concerning the issue is lop-sided and untruthful…much like you pretending to even have a clue what a black man in America must still go through today.

You fault the man for it. I am letting you know that if you could accept it for a moment, that this could have been the smartest move someone who wanted to deeply understand both sides WOULD make.

But then, he’s a politician. He now has to lie just because the mass public can’t comprehend anything beyond their own point of view.

This is why I stopped watching so much news programming. For all of the insight you truly believe you have, why do you think a man like him is LESS intelligent than yourself?

So he spends over 20 years learning the poisonous side - when exactly did he learn the other side?[/quote]

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

857

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Of course a post-racial candidate would address both sides - that would generally mean getting in the middle, not wallowing in ideas that exacerbate the problem.

Professor X wrote:
When I was in high school, I went to a Catholic Church, a Methodist Church and a Buddhist Temple (that one was with some of my Asian friends at the time). The reason I did that at the time was because I had been raised Pentecostal and what never made any sense to me was the belief that any one religion or section of faith was going to heaven over another. I never read anything in The Bible stating that all Buddhists were going to hell specifically, or that Catholics were doing it wrong, or that Methodists would be first in line. It seemed backwards to me at the time for an entire world to be so divided based on religion when the entire concept should have been based on unity and peace.

All of that is why right now I find it hard to sit in one Baptist church, or one Methodist church. The current state of religion, even for Christians, seems to focus on our differences more than what brings us together. However, I had to see what the issue was for myself rather than listening to my parent’s opinions alone (something they were surprisingly open about).

It is that perspective from which I can COMPLETELY comprehend why Obama would stay in that church. If you could actually be open minded enough for even a second to avoid the search for everything negative to harp on simply because you are looking for reinforcement of your already made political choice, you just might be able to see that his actions weren’t much different than mine were in high school (I already know your argument will be the time spent to which I will reply that his focus could have possibly been on community as well which is based on the building of relationships).

There is no possible way to see both sides without actually COMING FROM both sides. Without actually sitting there as one with both sides, any opinion concerning the issue is lop-sided and untruthful…much like you pretending to even have a clue what a black man in America must still go through today.

You fault the man for it. I am letting you know that if you could accept it for a moment, that this could have been the smartest move someone who wanted to deeply understand both sides WOULD make.

But then, he’s a politician. He now has to lie just because the mass public can’t comprehend anything beyond their own point of view.

This is why I stopped watching so much news programming. For all of the insight you truly believe you have, why do you think a man like him is LESS intelligent than yourself?

So he spends over 20 years learning the poisonous side - when exactly did he learn the other side?

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.
[/quote]

20 years(supposedly)and we’ve only come to know Rev.Wright in 2008…thats some serious poison,huh?? This is only in the interest of politics…people wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow any other time. I’d rather discuss the possibility of being in Iraq for 100 years. These Obama and race threads have tired me.

858

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.
[/quote]

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.

859

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I personally do not understand what is so poisonous? Are the white race so sensitive they can not tolerate any criticism .It may not be exactly like Rev Wright says but his points are valid.

The entire point is summed up in this question. Making negative projections about an entire race, based solely on race, is the essence of racism, and it’s poisonous to relations among groups because to the extent it is believed, it creates an artificial barrier between them.[/quote]

Would you mind quoting for me what he has said that fits under that definition? Admittedly I have skipped hundreds of posts in these Obama discussions but I haven’t actually seen anything from Wright where he makes negative projections about all white people based on their whiteness.

860

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

I’m glad you’re so perceptive and that in your omniscience you know exactly what my perspective is - which, of course, is shared by all white people because it’s the White America™ perspective. If only we could all be as perspicacious and understanding I’m sure there would be no issues whatsoever…

Professor X wrote:
So, if your claim is that your perspective is not understood, why is it you seem to think you have one Rev Wright so well figured out as to assume what he was actually preaching for twenty whole years? Are you psychic? Like most people, you have taken bits and pieces and formed one large flat opinion of what one could even gain from a church service for two whole decades.

If you want your own individual opinion understood in detail, why can’t you afford others the same luxury?[/quote]

You miss the point. As I stated in the quote below, I wouldn’t give two sh*ts about Wright’s personal perspective, i.e. his reasoning and/or motivations, because it’s immaterial.

I’m concerned with the content of what he’s teaching. The entire content of his 40+ years of teachings are not available for review. However, one can make a pretty good inductive case that the passages that were found are not aberrations but rather representative of his general beliefs and body of work. 1) ABC News unearthed the passages from the limited sample of sermons that the church put up for sale. 2) The church was the organization that chose the sermons it did put up for sale - so whoever culled the sermons either thought they were Wrights best and most representative, or simply pulled a random sample over a time period. In either case, that is probabilistic evidence it’s representative of his overall body of work. 3) The reaction of the church congregation to the objectionable claims was cheering, exclamations of agreement and positive - what it was not was surprised, or head-shaking about that crazy old uncle up there (which is a poor analogy in any case - more like a crazy father, given he’s the leader of the congregation, not some tertiary guy on the side). 4) The objectionable sections are part and parcel with Black Liberation Theology, which is the background of Wright’s theology - that this wouldn’t be the basis for his overall body of work is highly improbable.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Or maybe not.

At any rate, if that poisonous viewpoint is shared by a majority of blacks in this country, it may well be “IM-FUCKING-POSSIBLE” to get to a post-racial candidate - not that Obama is one. It won’t happen until that attitude dies. You cannot have a post-racial environment if a significant group has a strong anti-other-race prejudice. I don’t care if the preacher had anything positive to say - I don’t care if David Duke is an absolutely wonderful father who works with his community (and I have no idea if he is or isn’t - just a hypothetical example). Wright may not be as poisonous, but it’s the same family of toxins. From what I’ve gleaned, Black Liberation Theology is radical-left-wing Marxist tripe, combined with anti-white virulence. Stellar combination for the ecumenical doctrine of the spiritual mentor of a presidential candidate.

Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, aside from what I personally disagree with when it comes to what he said about Italians, what exactly is so “poisonous” about what this man has been quoted as saying in regards to this country specifically? Parts about “White America”? [/quote]

Yes, and more - see my reply to Pitbull above. And look back through this thread for more specific examples regarding Black Liberation Theology - I’m not pulling them up again.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The belief that our own government might be behind some rampant diseases (as if this never happened before)?[/quote]

It hasn’t. There are both quantitative and qualitative differences between the historical wrong of withholding treatment from a small group of individuals who got themselves infected with a well known venereal disease and creating a new disease in a lab for which there is no known cure and unleashing it on the general population of the United States by introducing it to a particular ethnic community for the purpose of creating a genocide.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That’s “poisonous”? Because you personally don’t like to hear it or because you think anyone who distrusts the government in that way is blatantly wrong?[/quote]

Nice combination of straw man and false dichotomy there.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Because you think that no one should be upset about the centuries of obscene hatred for blacks in this country that transcends any other race as far as intensity in the history books save for maybe the American Indian?[/quote]

Because it poisons relations going forward. There’s an economic fallacy at play, and it’s the focus on sunk costs ( Sunk cost - Wikipedia ). It is absolutely the worst thing to do if we’re going to move forward. And it’s particularly problematic in the case we’re looking at here: blaming different individuals for the sunk costs caused in the past by the racism of other individuals. It’s not like Wright is blaming Bull Connor and George Wallace - he’s blaming me, my brother and my son.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Guess what, many of them are still pissed too.[/quote]

They may very well be - but Wright is poisoning their minds against people who didn’t cause them to be pissed.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You have picked apart what you care to and ignored any real message there. You assume that the rest of us listen blindly and can’t pick what we need to from ANY church service (I have yet to be in one that I didn’t disagree with SOMETHING said from the pulpit eventually). You refuse to see the difference in culture even when it is explained to you over and over.[/quote]

Again with the straw man. I’ve been to services in a few different faiths myself. Sometimes I disagreed with stuff said from the pulpit (or its equivalent) and sometimes I didn’t. I do assume people are capable of making individual judgments. I also assume that for a lot of people, the continued repetition of a message about which they are neutral or even may believe will reinforce that message - and if it’s a poisonous message, that is a problem.

I’ve moved around a lot in my life, and each in each place I’ve had to find a new church. When you go and listen to a sermon, it’s usually fairly easy to distinguish between little disagreements about points of esoteric doctrine (e.g., do we need full immersion baptism) or opinion and large disagreements of major doctrine (e.g., is there a trinity, is there predestination) or the general role of a pastor in providing guidance to the parishioners (does he try to tell me for whom to vote or that God says my position on some political issue should be X). I’m sure you’re not trying to generalize my position into something that states the two are the same and one should walk away over minor disagreements, right?

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

And Barack dove in to that nest, succored there for two decades, marinating in that environment - and I’m supposed to just trust that he’s the post-racial messiah? Your tangent aside, he obviously wasn’t just exploring viewpoints - and as far as I can tell from his life story, his positions, and everything about his campaign, he’s never immersed himself, even for any short period, trying to understand a post-racial position or perspective. So color me just a little skeptical.

Professor X wrote:

Oh, I color you more than just skeptical. I color you completely ignorant to any other perspective but your own. I color you elitist in that you truly believe my perspective is beneath your own, such that you have to inform me that I see “racism everywhere” if I so much as mention a circumstance where I’ve experienced it in my own life. There are quite a few colors for you. In fact, I’m running low.[/quote]

I think you’re overly touchy for someone with such strong opinions - and pretty comfortable making such a broad statement for someone who’s so touchy. “Elitist who’s completely ignorant of any other perspective but [my] own.” Well, believe what you will - it’s not like you’re coloring things through your own overly sensitive lenses or anything…

Of course, I didn’t inform you that you see racism everywhere simply based on an incident. I actually made an argument that we would all be better off to not assume racism as the cause that must be disproved for any perceived or real slight encountered by a racial minority - because it’s one possible cause among many in most situations. You responded to that argument and brought up one anecdote of someone who didn’t recognize you as a doctor to counter that argument, and I responded to your response and suggested some alternative causations for that incident, based solely on the facts you provided in your posts. Funny how you remember it though…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

As for someone walking into my office and assuming I’m not a lawyer, it would be 99.99% impossible - you’ve obviously not spent a lot of time in large law firms. I’ve yet to see another lawyer back your stance on that claim - and I’ve never, ever, heard of it happening in a big law firm. I invite any other person with experience in a big law firm to contradict me.

Professor X wrote:

You’ve obviously not spent much time in dental offices. I doubt most white dentists have had too many other people degrade them or look down on them based on skin color in their profession or assume they couldn’t possibly be a professional and must be an assistant. You are effectively calling me a liar by acting as if this just could never happen even though I am telling you straight forward that it has. You actually believe my perspective is so beneath your own that I couldn’t possibly be seeing the truth and that you have to correct my vision for me.[/quote]

Again, Mr Touchy, you misremember the original circumstance of the question. You asked me how I would feel someone came into my office and assumed I wasn’t a lawyer. I told you I thought that was practically impossible in that setting. Any further implications on your anecdote are in your head - i.e., my example wasn’t meant as a refutation of your example, but as a refutation of the premise of your question to me.

You really should develop either a thicker skin, a better memory or a more optimistic set of beliefs about the people with whom you hold conversations if you’re going to debate politics.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Like many others, you are just fine ignoring the issues brought forward yet very quick to leap forward should someone use “White America” in a sentence. You see the situation through rose colored glasses and assume anyone with multi-colored vision to be blind and need your help as a seeing eye dog. [/quote]

Better than seeing other people through crap-colored glassed and assuming there is crap all around you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Why? Because from your perspective, that could simply never happen. No one could ever assume that you weren’t the professional you make yourself out to be based on skin color…because…well, you just haven’t experienced it!

One day you just might figure out that I have a point.

I honestly don’t give a shit at this point.[/quote]

Maybe one day you’ll actually read closely enough and remember well enough to attribute my actual perspective to me.