Obama’s faith: wacky, or disingenuous
Every time I see another clip of Obama’s pastor, I feel like I understand race relations a little better in America. Now, the issue is a complex one and not to be treated fully here, but what this guy preaches to his congregation makes leftist college professors look like Fox News analysts. Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech today to address (and hopefully transcend) the issue. Mitt Romney did something similar a few months ago. It was a great speech, and did nothing for his campaign. Perhaps that’s what Obama’s speech will be: a great speech that does nothing for his campaign.
Obama has talked openly about his faith and his being a Christian. Maybe the world doesn’t believe this, but Christians know that – while you don’t always agree with your pastor – he, his ministry, and his words are a reflection of your values. If he’s not a reflection of your values, then you’re in the wrong church. The long and short of this for Obama is that either A) he attends this church faithfully and dutifully and believes what this guy says, at least implicitly, which means he’s both wrong and wacked-out and maybe nuts, or B) he doesn’t really attend too faithfully, and he doesn’t really believe much of what his pastor says, which means he’s disingenuous and a liar, at least to his fellow congregants.
I suspect it’s B. He’s one of the many good fellows in evangelical and mainline and conservative and liberal churches who attends because that’s what’s expected, but not because he’s moved by the preaching, and not because he believes much of it. Like Mrs. May in Flannery O’Connor’s story “Greenleaf,” who absolutely went to church, but had the decency and taste not to believe any of it.
(Daniel James Devine wrote this article on Barack Obama’s church in the most recent WORLD. See a segment from one of Wright’s controversial sermons on WORLD On the Web. Alisa Harris wrote this roundup recently for WORLD On the Web. And here’s the WMB post with more than 200 comments.)



WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
















back to top41 Comments to “Obama’s faith: wacky, or disingenuous”
Wow!! Looking back, can you name any Democratic prez or congressman who allowed what he heard taught/preached on Sundays to in any way influence his choices and conduct from Monday to Saturday?? The joke told about Kerry is true for many politicians: “His religious views are so deeply held and private, he doesnt even impose them on himself!”
Naive voters in 1960 actually had the risible dread that JFK would phone up some bishop or even the Pope “Should I sign this bill? Approve this budget??” He wasnt the typical Catholic next door and Southern Baptists like Gore and Clinton didnt turn to any cleric for guidance in their official or private lives either.
Anyone who thinks Barack will have Jeremiah Wright’s number on the Oval Office rolodex is supremely deluded. I suspect a President Obama will actually darken a church house door as frequently as Ronald Reagan did.
Report comment to moderator
Shelby Steele, a black writer, addresses this issue today in in a WSJ article, The Obama Bargain, as follows:
How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?
What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more rhetorical than real?
But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
Steele, basically views Obama as a tragic figure who hasn’t really faced up to his own bi-racial identity and has succumbed to the political advantages inherent in being a black bargainer exchanging redemption for whites for political and career advantage.
Anyone who really wants to understand Obama should read Steele’s trenchant article.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the excerpt Peter,
What is scary about this church and Wright is not its faith, but its blatant racism. Wright is no MLK.
And that Mrs. Obama has been infected with this sort of thinking will be a bigger liability to Obama in a national campaign than Wright.
Report comment to moderator
Sadly, we’ve brought this on ourselves. The church in modern America is so much about feelings and personal beliefs, and so much NOT about doctrine or action or even the Bible, that questioning anybody’s faith commitment is a moot exercise, since there’s no objective standard to test them against.
Report comment to moderator
The issue is the racially bigoted views of a potential President Obama. Since Obama has been less than truthful about these views, we look to his church and his pastor for a full expose. Judging by his 20 year enthusiastic support of that church and pastor, Obama agrees with him.
Obama’s recent and reluctant disclaimers fall into two categories: 1) I don’t agree with Wright and, 2) I didn’t know he said or believed these things. My reply to #1: If you don’t agree with him, why have you supported him for so long? My reply to #2: If you didn’t know for 20 years what Wright has been saying and promoting, you are incredibly naive and uninformed.
Do we want a man that naive and uninformed to be President? I think not. A man would have to be blind and deaf for 20 years to not know what would be obvious to anyone else the first time they walked into that church. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer and a very smart man. Is he blind? Is he deaf? I don’t think so. That leaves only one other conclusion about his current disclaimers. They are not true and they are reflections of a basically dishonest character.
In 1990 we had a group of ardent supporters of Bill Clinton constantly telling us that character didn’t matter, that what mattered was just the issues and his ability to do the job. How stupid that was. Character does matter. It matters almost more than anything else.
At this point in time we don’t have something like a semen stained dress to tell us that Obama is not telling the truth. Yet we have our own eyes and ears to see and hear twenty years worth of evidence that reveals the inner man behind the smiling face of Obama the politician. I always thought that Bill Clinton was the ultimate con man. That may not be the case. Obama may be even worse.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s faith: wacky, or disingenuous
That’s the two choices? That’s how you discribe HIS religion? And you have the nerve to get mad at me for call it mysticism (which of course it is).
After reading what many of the so called Christians on this site have written, if a Jesus ever did come back, he would be b slapping faces right and left.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, RDEAN, the last time I looked, Christianity (Obama’s) was the same religion as Christianity (mine). And based on what I see and hear from his pastor and him, then I do think those are the two choices we’re presented with: wacky or disingenuous. When the man’s running for president and using his faith as part of his campaign, he better be prepared for this kind of criticism.
I don’t get mad when you call my faith mysticism. I just think you’re wrong. Just like you’re disagreeing with me now. And it’s okay to disagree, especially if you’re you. Or me. We have that much in common.
And yes, Jesus will be slapping faces left and right. And middle. And left of middle. And right of middle. And just above and below middle. All over, really.
Report comment to moderator
Wacky or dishonest? Some of both, but mainly the former. Judging by his wife’s bitterness and disgust with America until just the other day, she ate this stuff up. ON 60 Minutes, when asked about the dangers of his running for president as a black man, she replied that, as a black man, he could get shot going to the gas station. The question was about racist whites who might shoot a black man, and she obviously lives in Wright’s la la land America where racists are running around gunning down black people willy nilly. It isn’t the KKK or the GOP that’s running around shooting black men. It’s black men that are doing it. But in Wright’s hate fueled vision of America, blacks are in constant danger of being murdered by white people. What an idiot. And Obama’s wife eats this idiocy up.
His preacher believes it, and his wife believes it, but he doesn’t believe this stuff, and until just recently, wasn’t even aware of it? He’s lying through his teeth.
Report comment to moderator
His “religion” is insane, his disavowals of it are dishonest.
Report comment to moderator
First and foremost to SteveG: I answered you in the other post but reproduce my response here:
“SteveG, I have carefully looked for the other thread that you mentioned, but cannot find it. If you can reproduce the #27 and #28, I will answer you.”
Voters were naive in 1960 because the press covered up for JFK. Had people known of his extra-marital activities then, he would never have been elected, because as Michael Martin has noted — character matters.
RDean, maybe I interpreted the thread title differently that you did, but I thought it gave two choices regarding Obama’s personal faith, that it is either wacky or disingenuous, that he either really believes the racist (wacky) non-Christian parts or he’s lying when he says he doesn’t. Right now, you are expecting me to believe that this man has attended the same church for 20 years and that he was “unaware” (Obama’s word) that he’s been listening to anti-white, anti-American sermons. Does that make sense to you? Do you really believe a Harvard Law graduate doesn’t understand what’s been said in that church for the past 20 years?
Wright wants me to believe that it is the government’s fault that blacks take drugs that it “gives” blacks drugs. I disagree vehemently. The drug problem affects people of all races and economic backgrounds, and the only people who overcome it are the ones who take personal responsibility for their actions. The government is not responsible if I drink, gamble, take drugs, engage in illicit sexual behavior, etc. Wright deludes his congregation when he tells them to blame the government for their problems, and he’s certainly not teaching anything Christ taught when he does so. And Christ made it clear that those who mislead others will face a heavy penalty from him.
Thank you, Peter Leavitt, for the heads up to the WSJ/Steele article.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is burnt toast. In #2, Peter Leavitt posted a link to Shelby Steele’s obituary of Obama’s presidential hopes. Everyone should read it.
Report comment to moderator
I think this is a good thing. It is exposing what black people think. I once had dinner with a black woman who truly thought the United States Government developed crack cocaine to keep the black people supressed. I just stared at her with my mouth hanging open and asked about all the white people hooked on crack. Just the other day I had a conversation with a 23 year old black guy. We were talking about race and such because he was an Army brat and had served 4 years in the Air Force, so I was picking his brain about what he thought living here versus other places. It was refreshing to hear his views. He is a great guy but was telling me that he chose not to date black women because he has found that they have a hard edge to them. Perhaps that is what we are seeing in Michelle Obama. She has been subjected to this thought process all of her life and these are truly things she believes.
Report comment to moderator
I read the Steele article on the Opinionjournal dotcom a few moments ago.
Shelby Steele–though occasionally joined by Cosby– is alone in being able to honestly discuss pathologies which beset the “black community”. I too had hopes that Obama with his biracial upbringing (ie, raised by a white mom once his dad bailed on them) might be able to once and for all get America past its pigment obsession.
The core message of MLK was how America needed to get past all the skin pigment hangups and render the entire “race” issue a nonstarter, an irrelevancy. Personal character would be all you could judge someone on in a truly “colorblind” society.
But suppose for a moment we attained such a society where one’s talent or skill took you as far as you were willing to go in your field (ie black golf stars, black tennis stars, white rap stars like Eminem). If one’s blackness couldnt be used to any special advantage, who would be the big losers? If we all joined hands and sang “We Have Overcome” you’d find hustlers and grievance agitators like Sharpton or Je$$e Jackson there, bullhorns in hand, determined to drown out and spoil the love-in.
You’ll never hear either man proclaim “Race No Longer Matters” which is what the Obama campaign had as its appeal to so many D voters.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Steele. Damage control dictates that Obama unequivocally denounce specific Wright statements. Will that happen??
Well its a big congregation and we hafta assume its members do vote, donate to campaigns etc
Report comment to moderator
I think this is a good thing. It is exposing what black people think.
Exactly. Many whites have absolutely no inkling of the depths of hatred for and rage against whites that exist in the black community. But as Anthony Bradley points out in comment #2 on his blog post “Wright Under Unfair Attack”, most black churches preach the very same things that Wright’s being criticized for:
http://snipurl.com/21zq7
Report comment to moderator
NJlawyer at #10: First and foremost to SteveG: I answered you in the other post but reproduce my response here:
“SteveG, I have carefully looked for the other thread that you mentioned, but cannot find it. If you can reproduce the #27 and #28, I will answer you.”
It eventually dropped off the top list but it was still easily findable through search. At any rate, ok, here they are. From the thread titled “Obama responds to pastor controversy,” you said in #27:
Begin reposted material
#####
SteveG, you are making excuses for Rev. Wright. As far as I know, he does not suffer from dementia. Moreover, HIV became a problem in the early 1980s. That’s 25 years ago and more. How old was he then? This is so typical of liberals. You need no facts, just an excuse to keep going. It’s not okay to conclude that Tuskegee happened, so HIV happened. You need proof. Wright doesn’t have any, and you don’t want to require that he provide any. You’ll just make an excuse for him.
We differ on WTC. I blame bin Laden, the person who ordered that destruction. Bin Laden chose to take down office buildings rather than approach whatever problems he has with the US in a non-violent manner. But you can keep supporting him all you want, too.
All of this information about Obama and more has been available to everyone for a long, long time. Years in fact. If you did your research — and I’m sure you wouldn’t vote for a candidate you didn’t thoroughly research! — what does it say about you that you have supported a candidate who blithely follows a racist? The candidate’s wife obviously believes what she’s heard in service, but we’re to believe there’s been no impact on Obama? You’re the people always saying that GWB is stupid, yet now you want us to believe that a man with a Harvard Law School education didn’t have the smarts to disassociate himself from a racist? I suppose, however, that the “excuse” will be that something happens to the mind at Harvard Law School. Perhaps Obama has spitzered himself — he didn’t see the consequences of hanging out with the wrong people either.
#28:
NJLawer at #27:
SteveG, you are making excuses for Rev. Wright. As far as I know, he does not suffer from dementia. Moreover, HIV became a problem in the early 1980s. That’s 25 years ago and more. How old was he then? This is so typical of liberals. You need no facts, just an excuse to keep going. It’s not okay to conclude that Tuskegee happened, so HIV happened. You need proof. Wright doesn’t have any, and you don’t want to require that he provide any. You’ll just make an excuse for him.
I don’t need proof because I don’t believe it. He doesn’t need proof because I don’t care that he believes it.
The only relevant question is whether Barack Obama believes it. If he does, then I won’t support him anymore. But I don’t have any reason to think he does.
We differ on WTC. I blame bin Laden, the person who ordered that destruction. Bin Laden chose to take down office buildings rather than approach whatever problems he has with the US in a non-violent manner. But you can keep supporting him all you want, too.
‘k
I am NOT going to quietly stand by while you accuse me of “supporting” bin Laden because I don’t buy in to your ridiculous notion that we should pretend we have no earthly idea why those mean bad Arabs could have issues with good hearted ol’ America.
I made a specific point of emphasizing that I do not believe anything justifies the attacks. You chose to play the “supporting our enemies” unpatriotic card anyway.
So forget it. I’m not going to try to carry on a conversation with you on this topic.
#####
End of re-posted material.
Report comment to moderator
HSK: Obama doesn’t really believe much of what his pastor says, which means he’s disingenuous and a liar, at least to his fellow congregants.
The trivial, logically necessary answer to this howl of white pain is that Obama’s silence was not assent, and the duty to object didn’t have to apply to church. Rev. Wright’s sermons aren’t a set of assertions, a bill in Congress, or a conspiracy of treason. Rev. Wright’s sermons aren’t declarations so much as an acting out of sarcasm, antipathy, resentment, and derision. “God damn America” was a trope, not an imprecation.
The problem with the foregoing answer is that, although Harrison can understand it, he doesn’t want to hear it. Sure, many of our parents or grandparents were prejudiced, but Whites don’t want to get railroaded, and they’re sick and tired of being denied any presumption of innocence. Most of all, Whites want to be honored for their commitment to propriety and civility.
The bottom line is, Whites are aggrieved, and Rev. Wright illustrates why. Obama can be on the Wright side, or he can be our side, but this principle — this ground — belongs to Whites, and Obama has to pay a lot of rent for squatting on it, and he’s going to find out that rent’s not cheap. He should have been one of us, with his white mama, but we weren’t good enough for him, so let him pay.
The sufficient answer to Harrison’s complaint is, “Please forgive me.”
Obama has to say something like the following: “Rev. Wright was a Moses for a generation who wandered in a hard time, strangers in the land. Rev. Wright was intemperate. He called down justice upon America, but was not just himself. I should have denounced him before, but I loved him for the trials he endured. Judgement comes to every man, and Rev. Wright may not enter the promised land. His attitudes have no place in the future we all hope for. Rev. Wright may not ever be penitent enough to apologize for his insults, but I beg your forgiveness on his behalf. In the larger picture of the man’s life, I thought he was more sinned against than sinning. Yet his sins cannot be overlooked. His voice is discordant. He doesn’t belong in this choir.
Report comment to moderator
I think a big part of the problem is honesty. People, both black and white, are afraid of being called racist so everybody lies about what they really think. We may not like what the other one is saying but at least we’re talking about it. How can I assure you, you have no reason to be afraid of me if I don’t know you’re afraid? Sometimes I feel that even my closest black friends are holding back.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison’s attempt to set up two (and only two) choices is a handy rhetorical devise when one is trying to create controversy. It’s hardly grounded in reality though. The fact is, Obama’s choice may be grounded in elements that Harrison (or any of the rest of us) knows nothing about.
I agree – it’s fun to set things up in an “either/or” situation and let people slug it out. But it’s certainly not giving serious thought or attention to an issue. Nor does it create real dialog on an issue.
I know HSK can do better.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: Arabs can have all the issues they want with America, but they have governments to handle their displeasure, just as we have our government to deal with our displeasures with other nations. Bin Laden, AN INDIVIDUAL, chose a different route. He attacked us directly. This makes him a a criminal, a thug (to use GWB’s word). If you want to continue to “understand” bin Laden’s problems, what else am I to conclude about you? I understand why that eco-terrorist group burns down new homes before they’re sold, but their tactics are unacceptable. They are arsonists. They have other means legally available to them to pursue their cause, but they choose to destroy property. I don’t support crime. It’s that simple. Now, maybe you never thought of bin Laden that way, but that’s what he is. A criminal, plain and simple. His “issues” are irrelevant. And I would urge you to remember that. When the arsonists are caught, the jury will be charged to decide if they performed the elements of the crime. If yes, guilty. So, too, with murder for bin Laden. If you want to play defense attorney for him, fine, but I will tell you what the old judge used to say about lawyers who represented crime bosses — you cross a line you can never come back from in the legal profession. Other lawyers will always think you’re just as corrupt and that you’re using the system to cover up crime even if you’re not. So, yes, at some point, you choose your side.
The Arabs as a group have legitimate means of redress through their governments and/or through other legal means. Bin Laden did not employ them. He’s a criminal, not a leader. He belongs in the bowels of a supermax.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I’m glad you’re more computer literate than I am and that you were able to find the material.
Report comment to moderator
I have a feeling that Obama attends church perhaps a dozen times a year. He probably rationalizes that his work schedule does not permit more than that.
McCain probably attends a dozen times in a decade. He may not even attend at all. Some comments seem to reflect that his wife occasionally attends church but he doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
I have a feeling that Obama attends church perhaps a dozen times a year. He probably rationalizes that his work schedule does not permit more than that.
Yeah, nowadays. But up until a few years ago he didn’t live in DC, he lived in Chicago, and he was a faithful attendee, unless he’s a liar. Much of his book is about how much his church means to him and how important it was for him to participate in it.
Nice try, though.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #20: This makes him a a criminal, a thug (to use GWB’s word). If you want to continue to “understand” bin Laden’s problems, what else am I to conclude about you? I understand why that eco-terrorist group burns down new homes before they’re sold, but their tactics are unacceptable. They are arsonists. They have other means legally available to them to pursue their cause, but they choose to destroy property. I don’t support crime. It’s that simple.
Duh. And neither did I “support” bin Laden. Acknowledging that someone has a reason to feel what they do does NOT equal approving their use of violent means to express it. It doesn’t even equal thinking the reason is a good one. As your own example illustrates.
What you’re doing is the same nauseating bleat that right wingers have been doing since 9/11 — accusing anybody who says anything other than USA RAH! of “supporting” the enemy. It’s stupid, it’s divisive and it’s insulting.
Report comment to moderator
He’s a criminal, not a leader. He belongs in the bowels of a supermax.
He belongs in a grave.
How much more clear do I have to be?
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt – 2
Excellent, thank you for posting the link.
The last two paragraphs below cannot be forgotten, …. as Shelby Steele writes:
“But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred..”
“No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.”
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to Bin Laden, Bush said “I don’t think about him anymore”. You can watch him say it on Youtube. Many of the Bush followers actually believe Sadam was behind 9/11 and if you say “Bin Laden”, they think it’s a cream for skin rash.
For those that say they don’t understand how blacks see a connection between the Tuskegee experiments on unwilling black US citizens and the possibility of a goverment created Aids to target black people are just plain dumb. Seriously, you can’t get more dumb. It’s a determined kind of dumb. Tuskegee ended in the seventies and Aids showed up in the eighties which means the infection started in the seventies.
http://www.emorylies.com/Olansky.htm
Let me point out that 40 years covers generations. The original study started with men but soon included women and children as they became infected. What else would a governement do that would do this to it’s own people?
One other sad note: Many of these men were drafted to fight for a country that would do this to them. I wish someone could explain it to me why the Rev. Wright should just “forget” about it and why he is “over reacting”.
Add a history of Jim Crowe laws, slavery, segregation, white only drinking fountains, white only lunch counters, back of the bus, being sprayed with fire hoses, driving while black.
I remember the “white only” signs in Virginia. Yes, I’m that old. If I knew then what I know today, I would never have eaten at a place that was “white only”. Many, many whites like me are very ashamed. To hear these “good” Christians diminish what happened is sickening. Really sickening.
I wonder if many of the Christians on this site are delusional? Seriously. You think guy doesn’t have a beef? You never heard the expression “walk a mile in my shoes”? Shame on you people. You know who you are. You are awful.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently, association with a loon’s church can threaten public confidence (at least Repubs and Hillary hope so). Imagine what aggressively defending a loon does to one’s credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Why doesn’t someone do some research on Obama’s tax returns and find out if he faithfully tithed at the church — I have been told (and generally agree with) that where we spend our money is where our hearts are — Thus if Obama tithed with any frequency, then it is acceptable to say that he condoned to some degree or another the attitudes and beliefs of that church — if he merely attended (and never tithed, or only with great infrequency) then it may not be legitimate to grant guilt by association.
And no — don’t call me a racist, I’m just proposing a quantitative (perhaps adhod) test to determine whether (and to what degree) Obama supports the church — I’m being scientific……….
Report comment to moderator
Why doesn’t someone do some research on Obama’s tax returns
I an so glad you brought that up. You know of course, Obama is the only candidate out of the three, the other two being Hillary and McCain, who released his tax returns AND ALL of his senate earmarks. That’s right. The only candidate to realease his tax returns AND his senate earmarks.
McCain and Hillary refused to release their tax returns.
McCain and Hillary refused to publish their earmarks.
Of course, Obama has to live by a different standard. He is, after all, black.
Report comment to moderator
Here is Obama’s tax return.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf
He paid tithing of $22,500 to Trinity United Church of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
I would be interested in seeing Hillary’s and McCain’s tax returns.
Doubt that will happen.
Report comment to moderator
#7: I don’t get mad when you call my faith mysticism.
I don’t see why you should. Call a spade a spade.
The following is the definition of mysticism. I would be interested in where the definition is incorrect.
mysticism
mys·ti·cism [ místə sìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
1. belief in intuitive spiritual revelation: the belief that personal communication or union with the divine is achieved through intuition, faith, ecstasy, or sudden insight rather than through rational thought
2. spiritual system: a system of religious belief or practice that people follow to achieve personal communication or union with the divine
Report comment to moderator
The definitions’s fine. You just don’t know or where to use it properly. You should probably learn about the place mysticism has played within and not as a simplistic defining feature of Christianity before using the term indiscriminately.
Report comment to moderator
You just don’t know or where to use it properly
I would love to see mysticism “used” properly. Where can I “see” an actual demonstration?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, evidently you don’t agree with AG Mukasey that executing these criminals after a trial only creates martyrs.
What reason does Mr. bin Laden have? He has not been personally injured by the USA. No one here, Republican or Democrat caused him to become what he is. Tell me what we did to him. We did not create him. Don’t blame the US for anything he’s done. His own warped thinking created what he has become. That’s what you fail to understand.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Whatever.
You can think whatever you want. As for me, I don’t care to try to have a meaningful dialogue with anyone who accuses me of supporting Osama bin Laden.
There is a wide gulf between pointing out that what America does in the world has effects that we are not always mindful of or concerned about … and saying OBL was right or in any way justified to attack us, which I categorically did NOT say.
Leveling that accusation is slander at its lowest.
Report comment to moderator
#36: What reason does Mr. bin Laden have?
Why did the US become involved in Europe during WWI and WWII? The Germans didn’t attack us.
That’s the way Bin Laden sees it. He feels the US building military bases in the Middle East are an insult to his religion. Certainly idiot Bush saying we are in a “crusade”, the worst possible thing, didn’t help. Supporting dictatorships across the Middle East doesn’t help. Invading Iraq didn’t help. And the worst thing, letting Bin Laden go, didn’t help.
The US joined with Great Briton and brought down the democratic government in Iran, the only democratic government in the Middle East and replaced it with the despotic Shah of Iran. This led directly to our people in Iran being held hostage for more than a year.
This is why we need smart people in office. To fix some of our mistakes from the past.
Everyone knows how I feel about Bin Laden. He attacked the US. There is simply no reason that his carcass shouldn’t be on display for what he did. How many of you defend Bush when he publicly stated, “I don’t think about Bin Laden” is beyond me. Where is the outrage for letting Bin Laden go? I’m mystified.
Understanding why someone did something doesn’t excuse what he or she did. In the black and white world of the conservatives, America never did anything wrong and if you say it did, you are unpatriotic and love Bin Laden. This is such a retarded viewpoint. Retarded, stupid and dangerous. If you turn away from what causes problems, you will never find answers. Solutions are never easy and many times, quite painful. We have sowed, now we shall reap. Let’s just hope we can find a leader that can lead us through the whirlwind. You guys think it’s bad now? I suspect things are going to get a lot worse. Especially the way Bush and the Republicans have devastated this country.
Report comment to moderator
Blacks can overcome all whack jobness they casually throw off in church (or anywhere else)by claiming Whitey and his slavery some 145 years ago made them do it and so insane.
Report comment to moderator
LLama, Why were blacks in New Orleans after Katrina referred to as “looters” when getting a loaf a bread and some bottled water while whites, getting a loaf a bread and some bottled water were called “survivors”. Weren’t they also looters? No one called the looters.
Report comment to moderator
RDean,
Unless the same person made both statements, you have no leg to stand on. And surely even you are tired of that story by now.
Report comment to moderator