Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama may be wishing he didn’t go to church
Now that the Pennsylvania primary is over, as I’m sure you’ve heard, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been released from captivity and is doing everything he can to make sure he keeps Obama from being the next president. He’s been on a speaking tour for the last few days, and he’s loving it.
Smiling, cracking corny jokes, mugging it up for the big-time news media – this reverend is never going away. He’s found himself a national platform, and he’s loving it [...] He’s living a narcissist’s dream. At long last, his 15 minutes have arrived.
So there he was lecturing an audience at the National Press Club about everything from the black slave experience to the differences in sentencing for possession of crack and powdered cocaine. All but swooning over the wonderfulness of himself, the reverend acts like he is the first person to come up with the idea that blacks too often get the short end of the stick in America, that the malignant influences of slavery and the long dark night of racial discrimination are still being felt today, that in many ways this is a profoundly inequitable society.
The man is a megalomaniac, and he’s making himself look like one.
back to top103 Comments to “Obama may be wishing he didn’t go to church”
HSK: If you would care to elevate the dialogue and cite specific statements instead of using character assassination, perhaps a useful discussion will break out.
But that’s not the idea, is it?
Report comment to moderator
I like the new model.
We will hold every political group acountable for the ministers associated with them.
We will then count the amusing descriptions of why Katrina and 911 happened (remember, retribution on America etc.).
McCain will be responsible for those ministers who support him (Hagee per chance?).
And of course the religious right is responsible for the numerous pecadillos of ther various prominant ministers from the religious right (do we need to recite the list?
).
This should be fun!!
When we are done, I suspect that only atheists will be in a safe place. They won’t have to apologize for any ministers!
Report comment to moderator
Heck, lets generalize.
Every group is responsible fo the “whackos” which they find agreeing with them!!!
so evolutuionist need to apolgize for the evangelic athiests (ed comes to mind).
The conservative Christians need to apologize for thier bolder members (I remember an assertion about one poster described as the bold).
When we are done we can tar everyone with guilt by association for something or someone!
Of course it is probably too simple to suggest that we hold individuals responsible for their own beliefs and not the beliefs of their associates.
And what would be the fun in that!
Report comment to moderator
Maybe Rev. Wrights fears that if Obama is elected it will prove him wrong about how racist America is.
Report comment to moderator
My recollection is that more than a few right-wing pastors have from time to time made statements very similar to those of Rev Wright about America’s failings.
And lately we have been treated to the sight of John McCain cozying up to John Hagee who would gladly sacrifice the interests of America on the altar of Israel.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Read the article. It’s not HSK making these accusation it’s the New York Times.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, but you see we’re not allowed to talk about Wright anymore, because Obama’s crew has cried racism and anybody who brings him up again can just be dismissed.
Report comment to moderator
zz post 7,
au contraire.
Lets talk about Wright AND EVERY OTHER MINISTER WHO HAS MADE REMARKS WHICH UPON CONSIDERATION ARE SHOWN TO BE SHALL WE SAY ILL THOUGHT OUT.
And when we are done we will indeed remove religion from politics.
I think this is a great idea.
Let the auto de fe of ill thought out religious intervention in politics begin!!!
Report comment to moderator
Rev. Wright is selling the same old, same old hatred. People like Bill Cosby and Colin Powell — who are not as bombastic (to use the Rev’s word) are being drowned out. For different reasons, I am with Musing — let it all come out!
It’s always possible that KBells is right. If Obama loses, Wright can say “see, I told you!” If Obama does win, Wright’s out of business, and the Cosby/Powell line of thought will have to be addressed by the black citizenry.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING
And why is it that the theology of Obama’s church and pastor should not be discussed on a Christian world view blog?
ZZ
“It’s all Bu…”
Report comment to moderator
Because liberals want to control your thoughts, and if they can’t, they want to make you feel guilty that you asked a question about a topic that they feel you shouldn’t be talking about at all.
Putting a light on any topic, including black theology, is forbidden.
But you knew that.
Report comment to moderator
If McCain had been a member of John Hagee’s church for over 20 years, been married by him, took the theme of one of his sermons for a title to his book, contributed tens of thousands of dollars to that church, and if John Hagee’s most intemperate remarks reached anywhere near the level of Jeremiah Wright’s delusional tirades, Musing, you might have a point.
There is guilt by association and there is guilty association.
Report comment to moderator
I just saw this tagline and found it quite amusing:
Liberals are the only people who scream “CHARACTER ASSASSINATION” when we playback what they just said.
Report comment to moderator
bob Buckles post 10,
indeed you seem to have misrread me.
I am encouraging it.
Along with all the other ill thought out ministers and religious advocates.
Report comment to moderator
ken post 12,
excellent point. And of course McCain is disliked by the religious right.
But of couse the religious right as a political force is now up for grabs!!
Shall we work through the dirty laundry from the religious conservatives and consider that as well? After all we are talking guilt by association, and the association on the religious right does appear to go back further than you are suggesting for the guilt by association for Obama!
I think it might well be time to break the glass houses.
Report comment to moderator
What I am saying, however, is if we are to go down this path of guilt by association with pastors, then lets go down this path for real, with enthusiasm, and with honesty.
And when we do this we will find that virtually all religious influence in American politics will be tarred as well.
I personally think this would be a good thing.
If you are honest and want to pursue Rev. Wright, I suspect you will think it is a good thing as well.
If you want to be selective in your application of the approach, however, then I suggest your dishonesty is showing.
Report comment to moderator
Local a.m talk radio here in San Antonio pointed out that Rev Wright’s speechifying is promoted/paid for by a woman who is a huge unabashed Clinton supporter.
Talk about dirty tricks!
Report comment to moderator
Obama didn’t go to church. He attended a biggoted, racist, radical, Marxist, anti American, religious cult. He was brainwashed for 20 years that America and Whitey are responsible for all the ills of the world and that this evil Satanic duo is behind and responsible for all that is wrong in the black community.
You could not think anything else after seeing the tapes and looking at their web site.
This type of brainwashing black ‘non church’ is very prevalent and it is a good thing that they have been exposed for what they are. People will have no problem figuring out why so many of Obama’s policies are Marxist, why so many of his and his wife’s comments are anti American, anti white and racist to the core.
They are just a product of this cult of strange and weird beliefs that any sane person would reject out of hand. Obama gives new meaning to bad politicans with poor judgement but it is better to find out now than later.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Do you want to be judged by every book you’ve read, every seminar you’ve attended, or even every person for whom you have some admiration (with reservations, perhaps, on some issues)? No? Didn’t think so. You’re smart enough to know the difference between a peripheral connection and attending a man’s church for 20 years and all the rest of it, aren’t you?
I edited one of Jerry Falwell’s books. I thought it was a good book. I even list it on my resume. And for the record, I think Falwell was a decent man (who occasionally spoke before thinking of the ramifications), who was unfairly tarred by his enemies. But if I ever ran for office, anyone who brought up my “association” with Falwell would be out of his mind–I never even met the man.
I’ve only been at my church for five years, but a person can justly bring up my “association” with my pastor. As an adult, my coming under my pastor’s teaching is associating with him. Bringing my children under his teaching is also, doubly so.
Report comment to moderator
Musing and Arcadia, I wouldn’t pay any attention to the likes of KBells, NJL, Ken, ZZ, MIM, Bob Buckles, and the rest. They’re just bitter. What do you expect from a bunch of typical white people?
Report comment to moderator
Chryl D post 19,
what an interesting thought!
Are you suggesting that we not be tarred with guilt by association?
Why as I read the discussion so far this sounds like it might be close to unpatriotic!!!
My real point is lets be honest and consistent.
If Rev. Wright is to be considered an issue, I will grant the point, but then so does every other minister who makes ill thought out political speech.
Falwell would iondeed come to my mind as a plausible candidate for example, but the disucssuion would indeed be interesting and complex but would in the end focus more on what are usually thought of as consrvative Christian pastors than any other gruop.
So my point is lets be honest and fair.
If Rev. Wrioght is a valid challenge to Obama, these conservative Christian pastors are a valid challenge to the religious right as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t Wright simply the political Britney Spears?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 19,
next thing you will suggest we should consider information in context, understand the intent, and perhaps think about it critically.
My heavens, are you suggesting that voters might have to think about their vote? What happened to the concept of voting based on pure emotion?
My sense is your proposals are down right revolutionary!!!
Report comment to moderator
I am coming to terms with my experience of teaching in South Central LA for 30 years. I kept hearing little snippets and was told small things about the differences between African Americans and whites that didn’t make much sense to me until I started reading about “Black Liberation Theology.”
It seems that there was and is a great hidden undercurrent of “history” and philosophy running around Black society that isn’t well known or understood outside of that enclave of America. Rev. Wright has brought it out in the open. I now understand many things that were seen through a fogged-up lens before.
I now get why it is so difficult for African Americans to become Republicans. This should be on a whole separate thread, not here.
Report comment to moderator
# 20: Hilarious, NT! But you left out the part about them holding on to their guns and religion.
Report comment to moderator
#25 TJ
“This is my rifle
This is my gun
One is for fighting…”
US 56693793 Sir
Spec.5 E-5
Robert T. Buckles
5th Surgical Hospital,
Mobile Army
I wonder if there is anyone out there who understands?
Report comment to moderator
#26 — Hoo-ah, my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, the point is that Obama has been a member of Wright’s church for twenty years; he has to be aware that Wright follows the African centereed Black Liberation theology of James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. A quote of Cone’s basic view follows:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
This is dangerous stuff that sensible Americans have every right to be concerned with. If McCain attended a white church for twenty-years with a similar racist view of blacks, he would have long ago been properly vilified and driven from politics.
Report comment to moderator
And go watch Wright’s Press Club speech on YouTube where he says he doesn’t disagree with James Cone in any way.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavett post 28,
no problem.
And a number of conservative pastors who have made perhaps termed ill considered comments have been active leaders in the religious right for many years.
So lets use the same rules:
Obama should withdraw from seeking the nomination
The religious right should withdraw from politics
I think this is emminately equitable.
Report comment to moderator
Peter, I have to admit I had no idea these ideas were ‘thundered’ from the pulpits of black churches. However after looking back at many, many occasions and all the interactions, I now understand why many comments, statements were made and WHY, even though I didn’t understand them at the time.
Obama claiming he had no idea these points were made in his church is astounding.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 28,
but of course we might adopt the model of considering the various participant in politics based on their own views and positions.
But that would perhaps be too rational.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt post 28,
but lets consider that Rev. Wright is over the top, and this should be considered political poinson for all who are in any way associated with him.
The religious right as a whole of course fails this same model.
Next we will clear out Catholic involvement in politics: the political position on the Catholic abuse issues would disqualify them
We can next go the Epicopaleans (ECUSA) vs. perhaps CANA. Depending on your perspective, either of these groups should perhaps be closed to politics.
Ah yes it will make for an interesting political landscape!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl wouldn’t be tarred by guilt by association if she ran for office because she edited Falwell’s book, even if it came to light. Because there’s no tar in being an editor. It is her job, and people can distinguish between a job and a long association with someone who may be a political liability. And Musing knows this. But perhaps he is an innocent and really believes that all those lawyers who represent the mob don’t know what their clients are really up to.
Musing wants us to believe that Amerians are too stupid to make distinctions and evaluate situations and people all on their own. He prefers to silence people to serve his own liberal political ends.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, you summed it up correctly, and right on schedule. GOOD JOB!
Report comment to moderator
Bob #26 – Heard that one in basic training at Ft. McClellan, AL in 1978.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer post 34,
and so you are arguing that there are no ethical implications regarding your choice of work activity?
Report comment to moderator
Musing also likes painting with a very broad brush.
Report comment to moderator
njlawyer post 34,
so lets consider.
I am an accountant.
I do accounting for the mob.
This has no ethical implications since people can distinguish between my job, accounting, and supporting the mob!
Report comment to moderator
Musing #21. That is exactly what has been going on for the last three decades. You guys started this and now you want to stop it now that one of your own has been caught in it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you’re being disingenuous about this issue. Again, the point is that Obama embraced Wright as a pastor for twenty years. As far as we know, until very recently he never expressed reservations or serious disagreement about Wright.
As to the religious right, there are a few fringe characters such as Fred Phelps whom most religious conservatives loath. No conservative would favor some twenty-year member of his church for political office. To my knowledge there are no religious conservative pastors who view black people as any sort of enemy.
NJLawyer is right that most Americans are making a careful distinction between Wright’s fevered views of white people and those of religious conservatives or for that matter liberals.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, in my view it would be very poor judgment for an acountant to accept the “mob” as a client. A lawyer may properly accept scoundrels as clients under our legal system; first-class accountants are wise to accept only clients with a reputation for integrity.
Report comment to moderator
Obama says he’s outraged by former pastor’s comments
http://tinyurl.com/5pabr2
Report comment to moderator
Obama today: “The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago,” he said. “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.”
“They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs,” he said.
“If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either.”
“I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church,” he said. “But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”
“It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for,” he said.
(From Politico
Report comment to moderator
That’s smart of Obama. Seriously — very smart. I truly wish he’d repudiated some of this weeks ago, but I do have a great deal more respect for the man after saying this.
Report comment to moderator
Oama needs the church – it is something to cling to should he become bitter when the government fails him.
Given Obama’s position on guns, church would be all he would have to cling to should he need repsite from his bitterness over governmental failings.
Oh, wait, that’s only us typical white folk who do that.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I will tell you what my old judge used to say. When he was a trial lawyer, he mentored a young lawyer, who soon went out on his own and had quite a criminal trial practice. In time, he became a mob lawyer — and he became a very wealthy man. The judge always used this man as an example in teaching us all about career choices. He told us that the man was brilliant, that he would have made tons of money because of his ability, but choosing to go to the “dark side” meant he locked himself off from every “decent” client, that he ruined his reputation forever. And he was right. This man has plenty of money, he is known among lawyers as a brilliant criminal attorney, but he’ll never head up the NJ Bar Assn., and everyone knows why. You can represent a Jeffrey Dahmer and every other lawyer will say everyone is entitled to a defense, but when you choose known mobsters, that changes. As Peter Leavitt notes, that goes for accountants, too.
Americans have a sense of fair play, they understand that politics is dirty, and there’s no two ways about it that it is. It always has been. (Have a seance and talk to John Adams if you don’t believe me! Or just do some research.) Maybe you don’t have faith in Americans, but I do. There will be those who don’t believe Obama is now truly distancing himself from Wright, and those who will say “well, now that he’s denounced Wright, is his white grandma next?” — but that’s politics. Listening to this guy for 20 years is a factor to be considered. If Obama didn’t believe this stuff, why didn’t he leave? (Unless, of course, you’re arguing some sort of battered parishoner syndrome defense). It should all be allowed to play out, instead of the liberals — like yourself — filing these “motions to suppress the evidence.”
And this can be a good thing for race relations in this country. Either follow the Wright mentality or blacks can learn that there’s really a better way than all this hatred. This is a turning point, and they’ll have to choose how they really feel. And the rest of us have a right to know what we’re dealing with, too.
I’m thinking more chickens are coming home to roost.
Report comment to moderator
#44 STEVEG,
Like Rev Wright said in his interview to clear things up. Obama has to say things he doesn’t really believe in order to get elected president.
I take him at his word, since this was a clarification, and realize that Obama probably doesn’t believe what you wrote in your post because he is a liar and Wright is not lying about him knowing that Obama lies about such things as a matter of course. I have seen nothing coming out of his mouth that would make me believe otherwise.
Sadly, his wife was never proud of her country until her lying husband ran for president. I believe that too.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve only seen part of Obama’s speech, so I can’t comment on his expression throughout, but from the part I saw, I think he’s grown up and realizes that in his big speech on this subject weeks ago, he should have maybe not denounced Wright, but should have said “I don’t believe the US gave Aids to blacks, etc. He should have denounced the remarks, if not the man. Had he combined that speech with this one back then, he wouldn’t have given the other side the ammunition they now have.
But do I think we should hand the country to someone who still really needs to grow up, do some work and provide substantive proof to the country showing exactly what he believes? No. He’s not seasoned enough. Show me the substantive proof. Liberals, ya got none!
Report comment to moderator
“I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church,” he said. “But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses.
All of those examples were known before his Philadelphia speech. There were excuses then. I wonder what’s different now.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 40,
hmmm first I think you need to define “you guys”.
Second, I think you will find I am an equal opportunity condemer here. In my opinion the error was involving religion in politics in the first place.
And I suggest that Obama’s treading on the edge of this precipice indeed opens him up to its consequnces.
But of course if Obama must face these consequences, then the apologias for various pecadillos and misstatements of various conservative pastors must also be null and void, and the religious right must also face the consequences.
It is a sauce on goose and gander problem.
If we play this totally straight, Obama loses big. The religious right also loses big. McCain loses small (for reasons provided by several posters) but will lose the election, and Hillary is president of the U.S.
This is the even handed approach.
Enjoy!!!
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
You have yet to explain why Wright’s relationship to his own pastor is anywhere close to the equivalent of another politician’s relationship to pastors in general. Could you do so, please? I can be questioned for my coming under my pastor (if he proved as ugly and controversial as Wright), but there’s simply no way anyone can hold me accountable for every pastor in America…even pastors I’ve edited, heard at conferences, heard on the radio, etc.
Could you explain why the comparison seems valid to you? The rest of us are scratching our heads, but I think somehow you think you’ve made yourself clear.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob, nothing basic has changed here. Wright’s extreme views on the evils of white people and their institutions have been consistent over the years given that he is an acolyte of Cone’s and Hopkin’s black liberation theology.
What has changed is that Wright has been making his extreme views known more and more publicly; Obama knows that the American people have caught onto them and will not stand for them. This latest attempt of Obama to distance himself from Wright won’t work for the simple reason that many sensible people have caught onto the reality that Obama had twenty-years to leave this radical Trinity Church and chose not to.
An important point here is that of the liberal black commentator, Juan Williams, who claims than only about one in ten of the black churches espouse the radical white racism of Wright. Martin Luther King held white people to their established egalitarian ideals; he didn’t denigrate the evil white nation in the way that Wright does.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, thanks for passing on the insight of that wise judge. I see that lawyers, also, have to be careful going over to the “dark side” by representing mob like characters, however much every client has the right to fair representation and trial.
Report comment to moderator
“But of course if Obama must face these consequences, then the apologias for various pecadillos and misstatements of various conservative pastors must also be null and void, and the religious right must also face the consequences.
It is a sauce on goose and gander problem.”
The fact that you are bringing this up shows that “he apologias for various pecadillos and misstatements of various conservative pastors” has always been null and void.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 47,
I like your nodel of the mob lawyer. It does seem to make my point: choice of career has consequences and one is hard put to say they were “only editing” Falwell’s book.
That said, of course, we all have a variety of acquaintances. If we are going to judge by one’s acquaintances, then so be it, and lets drive religion out of politics once and for all, simply based on the examples I have given, no religious group in politics is blameless.
It is possible, just possibly possible, that the American electorate will judge the individual by their own positions, thoughts, and ideas. If so, then I suggest Obama will do quite well, and much of the religious right will also do well.
But it is a sauce for goose of gander. If Obama is to be condemned becuase of his pastoral affiliations, well then so should virtually all religious participation in Americna politics.
And in the end, I do sense that this might be a very good thing.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D post 52,
quite right, I make no argument about pastors in general.
I state that if close involvement with a pastor who expresses unreasonable and arguably inapproproaite views is the standard, why then lets hold the standard.
I will even grant that possibly you could insist on a sliding scale.
so Obama, who is closely associated with Rev. Wright should be condemend and ostracized from politics.
But conservative Christian pastors who express such views AND the organizations whcih they support and in some cases lead should also be included. I believe this would include most of the religious right in America. We can do a blow by blow discussion if you like, but statements about Katrina and 911 come to mind. And these relationships in some cases go back decades.
So I am all for condeming Obama. But lets hold the same standard for all and condem virtually every religious entitiy which has any relationship to political activity and movements who have any pastor who has expressed what might best be described as ill thought out ideas.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, your equation of Obama’s situation with that of religious conservatives is a canard. Obama is the one whose pastor was and is steeped in white racism. None of the relgious conservatives, for example, on WorldMag are connected with pastors who espouse black racism. Get this through your obtuse head.
Report comment to moderator
kbells post 55,
excellent, then you and I appear to agree!
Of course this blog itself is arguably testament to part of the issue here.
Will this blog publically and clearly disavow Rev. Wright, and Hagee, and ….?
It would be interesting to watch. I suggest that arguably the entire raison d’etre for World Mag rests on possibly winking at the extreme views of some of the right wing conservative pastoral leadership.
They could of course easily prove me wrong on this point, and the Rev. Wright situation provides a nice opening for such a move.
But somehow I just don’t see World Mag advocating the withdrawal of religion from politics.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I don’t know one pastor who espouses racisim. I don’t agree with Hagee’s doctrine, however he certainly isn’t a racist.
Musing you need to SEPARATE doctrine from racism, they are two different intities when discussing Wright and Hagee.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is a blessed with a good temperament for leadership. He’s even handed, thoughtful, empathetic, and idealistic.
Think of where he might have gone, or been by now, in the Republican party, at the right hand of power.
Jeremiah Wrong makes me think the better, not worse, of Obama. One of the lessons Jesus taught his disciples was to go for the place at the foot of the table and to look up to others. At a personal and political cost, Obama has refused to disown his pastor. Fortunately, the juxtaposition of the two personalities shows a strong contrast.
Rev. Wrong is a problem for Obama, but not a defect in his candidacy. Obama merely needs to resolve the problem politically. That’s probably not as hard as it might seem. He can show his Christianity by returning kindness and honoring the intemperate Moses for his leadership in the time of captivity, yet make it clear that he goes into the future without him.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s oponents here seem to confuse Rev. Wrong’s anger at White power with racism. He thinks Whites are morally culpable in Black history and on the wrong side of God’s purpose, but he doesn’t consider them to be inferior or deficient.
Report comment to moderator
ABC NEWS
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior
National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Just What Did Obama Know About Wright’s Past Sermons?
March 15, 2008 6:15 PM
In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, “I wasn’t in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. … If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. … If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there.”
Obama told CNN that he “didn’t know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor.
Report comment to moderator
Not exactly, Musing. Everyone is entitled to a defense — not necessarily an editor. If a lawyer is assigned to represent a mobster because he’s next on the list, it’s one thing – that won’t taint him. If a lawyer makes it known that he will use his skill to defend known organized crime figures without being assigned by the court, that is his knowing choice – that’s another thing. A lawyer can turn down a client, and he makes a statement by accepting that retainer check from someone like John Gotti, Tony Pro, or the Accetturos, the latter two “fine” NJ representatives of the underworld. Are they entitled to a defense? Sure, but not mine. I’m assuming that Cheryl was assigned the Falwell book, not that he sought her out and she accepted the retainer, so to speak. I doubt that Cheryl would seek the opportunity to edit Warren Jeff’s Handbook for Pedophiles so she could put that on her resume.
Sauce for the goose is indeed sauce for the gander. Liberals have been condemning conservatives for their contacts with and endorsements by religious leaders for many, many years. Don’t deny it. You can’t complain now when the shoe is on the other foot, and pick up your ball and go home. Moreover, religion belongs in politics in the sense that it identifies and defines a person. It informs a person’s decisions and choices in life. (For example, if a person running for office was an FLDS member, I’d think twice about voting for him. Odds are he wouldn’t agree with me on where pedophiles belong.) Religion is a part of life, and to deny that part of someone’s life or the Nation’s life as a whole, is just not realistic and it’s not fair. It’s right up there with tax returns, where the candidate went to school, his military record, etc.
You seem to have this need to control what can or cannot enter into a voter’s decision in choosing a candidate. You don’t have that right. You just don’t have that right. Thankfully.
And Scroopy: “One of the lessons Jesus taught his disciples was to go for the place at the foot of the table and to look up to others.”
What??????
Report comment to moderator
One can argue that a 20 year old association with a pastor is different than accepting an endorsement from a pastor, however, in the latter case political opportunism has obviously trumpeted personal principles.
The gotcha games of US politics with skeletons in every closet does not advance the leadership of the country. Great leaders with lousy associates/family members may be wary of politics.
If my personal views were held to equivalent to the Anglican pastor where my daughter went to Sunday school for three years, I would be throughly misrepresented. Similarly, Obama could have attended church for several reasons — community, Sunday school, good music, networking — reasons that are used by people every Sunday. These reasons do not include nor exclude agreement with the pastor. AS for Wright, his black liberation theology although repulsive to some is not not uncommon among African Americans of his era. Younger African Americans could easily just ignore it the same way young liberal members of a church tolerate the aging conservatives who have been there forever. From reading his sermons, in context, I don’t think he said anything extraordinary. And finally Wright served six years in the US Marines yet Cheney and friends with several deferments claim to be the patriotic party.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 64,
but of course the mob lawyer was your point. And I am glad you agree that choosing to edit Falwell is also at least of the same class of decision.
And of course I have no intent of going home. I will merely suggest that we ensure equal treatment of both ill thought out behavior from pastors on the right and left.
Of course I haver arfgued against this behavior of pastors on the right., I am now arguing for it for pastors on the left.
It is the right wing, yourself included, who appear to insist on a double standard here.
So reread my posts. I am not arguing for lieniency for Wright. I am arguing for using the same rules being applied to Wright and Obama to be applied to pastors on the right (Katrina and 911 remember) who have been equally ill considered and argue the same level of guilt by association.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, your candidate has not been subjected to a double standard. He is being equally treated.
It has all been thrown against the wall, by you towards the Republican candidates and now by Republicans towards Obama. Your target is bigger. Your target is a 20 year close association with a racist minister. The relationship of Republicans to the ministers they are linked with isn’t even that of a member of the same church. The target is smaller. You do want leniency for Wright. You want him to get off easy. You want that 20 year close relationship to be treated the same as the lesser relationship.
If you have a 20 foot target and it gets hammered 100% and you have a 2 foot target and it gets hammered 100% — you’ve been treated equally. That’s what’s happening.
I realize that doesn’t taste good because your guy is in deeper water, but that’s life. And it’s fair. Obama is the one who provided a close relationship to a racist minister. McCain’s got an endorsement by Hagee. Be honest and weigh those two fairly.
One’s a big oozing cancer. The other’s a pimple.
Report comment to moderator
Obama: ‘Outrageously wrong’ to reprint Hamas manifesto
Says ‘I certainly wasn’t in church’ when defense
of terror appeared on ‘Pastor’s Page’ of bulletin
March 22, 2008
Once again, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama is distancing himself from a statement made by his Chicago church and defending himself by saying he wasn’t present when the statement was made.
PLEASE NOTE: If you go to the link above, “HAMAS MANIFESTO” go to the bottom of the page, there you will read —– Sunday, July 22, 2007 Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. —— that was almost a year ago, how many people read this in the bulletin? OR, weren’t people talking about it, those who where ‘members’?
Report comment to moderator
HRW writes: “Great leaders with lousy associates/family members may be wary of politics.”
They should be. Why do we have to accept people with lousy associations or family members if they are unwilling to be vetted?
No one held Billy Carter against Jimmy Carter. People are not so stupid that they don’t know the difference between a bumpkin brother and and a racist minister. You didn’t see Jimmy Carter selling Billy Beer. We have seen Obama titling his book after words used by his racist pastor. He obviously held him in esteem. What kind of a person keeps community and networks with a racist? Stop making excuses. Obama felt comfortable in that church or he would have left.
I did leave my old church. Why? Because once I discovered it wasn’t as Bible-based as it should be, I didn’t belong there. I had a choice to make. Nice people, but wrong. Obama was no battered parishioner with no mind of his own who’d been beaten down like a battered wife. He chose to be in that church. You can’t tell me that an educated Harvard lawyer is too stupid to stand up and walk away from racism, and if you are, then you’re telling me Obama is pretty gutless and weak.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 67,
of course I am not arguiing that OPbama and Wright are being held to a double standard.
I am arguing that conservative Christians ARE NOT holding the conservative pastors who make ill advised comments and their associates to this standard.
And a read of this discussion will show you quite clearly who is expressing a dboule standard . but in your case, based on your comments …
As an aside, I am by preference and inclination a supporter of Hillary. Saying my guy is in deep water does indeed suggest that you have not been listening to my comments in this blog.
If you have any challenge to throw against my argument, it would be that I am making these comments in a partisan manner to support Hillary. But if you did that it would again show that you have not read my posts on this material.
P.S. and do look at my comments regarding Hagee and McCain. It does sound like you simply are not reading what I am posting but rather are insisting that I have posted what you want to believe I have posted. See post 51.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER #64 — Didn’t you go to Sunday School? LK 14:10, 13. PHIL 2:3, 5-7.
While dumping on Rev. Wrong, save some of your scorn for those prideful evangelicals who are the analytic scales of spiritual substance and the connoisseurs of theological rectitude. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy: Luke 14:10 in my Bible starts with “But when thou are bidden….” verse 13 says to invite the maimed, etc.
Your sentence says: ” “One of the lessons Jesus taught his disciples was to go for the place at the foot of the table and to look up to others.”
Yes, I went to Sunday School, still not seein’ it. How does your sentence relate to these verses inLuke or the verses in Philippians you referenced.
What are you saying? I don’t even know what your sentence says! Look up to others? Who? What?
Report comment to moderator
from #28 Peter Leavitt
“If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”
We are told we will be judged in the same way we judge others. Does this mean we should accept this view of Christianity as just a little different way of worshipping God and living as an adopted son? Am I judging to call this apostasy?
I had the same problem with Mitt Romney and his choice of worship. After acknowledging that I found Romney’s religion wanting, I had to look at just what his positions were and his flip-flops. I didn’t like what I saw.
When I get past Obama’s religion I still have to look at what he stands for. And just what does he stand for? Everyone says he is for the same things Hillary is for. So if this is the choice, choose.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 72,
good observatons.
from which you would then presumably agree that a religious tradition which argues that 911 was “Gods” punishment for America’s sins is equally to be condemed.
And I would agree,
I believe, however, that the following discussion:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770_1.html
Partial transcript of comments from the Thursday, September 13, 2001 edition of the ‘700 Club.’
which appear to capture the post 911 behaviors of Falwell, suggests that both Wright and Falwell for example were in agreement on 911 being punishment for America’s sins. The discussions of Pat Robertson here also appears interesting.
So I am assuming that in the fairness you will also be aginast the religious right.
I suggest however that the use of the apostasy may not be the correct form here. I do believe that we can agree that all the examples I am discussing are examples of hate.
Report comment to moderator
What I suggest may be going on here is what would appear to be a form of the nuclear option.
As scoop moth seems to be suggesting, a chunk of the elctorate does appear to be of the opinion that politics and religion shouldn’t mix and are comfortable that Obama is acting from what appear to be the ideas of the candidate themself, not the ideas of his religious leaders. It is an interesting question of how large this contingent is.
There is a second group which appears to suggest that the posiitions of one’s religion and religious leaders is appropriate to consider in politics. We have seen this numerous times in WMB during this campaign. But of course, as jseidl noted in a companion discussion in WMG, this is perilous terrain.
My sense is that that latter group may very well be successful in their tactical approach with respect ot Rev. Wright. And I applaud the strategic result which would appear to inevitably follow: we will remove religion from politics.
Amusingly, my sense is that if this “nuclear approach” actually works, we will have either Obama or Hillary as president and the religious right will increasingly be a foot note to history.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, I went to Sunday School, read your verses, still don’t know what the sentence you wrote means, or why you added in Philippians. So, pretend I didn’t go to Sunday School and give me your sermon.
Musing, I had a response for you last night, but I lost it, and then I was so tired I couldn’t see anymore. So, I will respond to you when I get home from court this morning.
But in quickly reviewing Bob Buckles’ last point, I have to say I was reminded of Romney, too.
No church condemned Mormonism. No church has condemned Wright. The people have done that, the news media has brought his sermons to light. I don’t think your or Jonathan Seidl or anyone else has the right to force individuals to comment pro or con about Wright, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, etc. I also don’t think you have the right to demand that they stop commenting either if they so desire. We have freedom of speech here. And we have free exercise. Most ministers do not enter publicly into politics the way those I mentioned have. Once they do, people are free to criticize them. But you don’t have the right to tell them not to speak their views. The way I see this, you are trying to eliminate any religious influence on the election, and free exercise says you can’t do that. I still think you want to control what voters can look at in evaluating a candidate. I don’t think you have the right to do that either. If these guys want to “hurt the church” I can’t stop them, and I won’t stop them. Let them speak. Let everyone speak.
If someone doesn’t want to vote for McCain because Hagee dissed Catholics or is pro-Israel, so be it. I’ve heard criticisms of Hagee. Your problem is that he isn’t as controversial as the minister the liberal side is stuck with. That’s the luck of the draw I guess.
I have to get ready now. See you later.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 76,
well of course:
“No church condemned Mormonism. No church has condemned Wright. The people have done that, the news media has brought his sermons to light. I don’t think your or Jonathan Seidl or anyone else has the right to force individuals to comment pro or con about Wright, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, etc.”
is correct.
Nor am I agruing that you must or must not do anything.
I am only observing that if you do not act even handly between the extreme religous right pastors and Rev. Right you are being hypocritical.
And as you note then the people will indeed come to the game again.
The attack from the right on Rev. Wright is indeed potentially a nuclear option with the possiblity of far reaching consequences. It also is amusing that once launched the results will arguably not be determined one whit by whether the religious right is self-consistent or hypocritical: religion will be removed from politics, at least for a while.
If the religious right is not hypocrutical then they potentially can help construct a post-20th century model in which religious ideas have merit but religion is not a major component of politics.
If the religious right is hypocritical, then my sense is the impact on religion in politics will be more far reaching.
The religious right would appear to have two choices:
1) do they want to trigger this nuclear option: posts in this blog suggest that they do
2) do they want to help mold a post nuclear option reality or will they be subsumed by it
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Your logic is sound but I don’t think you’re factoring in the Law of IOKIYAR. Add that to your equation and see if the math still works.
(Law of IOKIYAR: Republicans may freely criticize Democrats for behavior the Republicans engage in themselves. Any attempt to point out the double standard is to be denounced using any effective tactic. The reason for this is IOKIYAR: It’s OK If You’re A Republican.)
Report comment to moderator
Admittedly I am coming late to the fight and bringing a knife instead of a gun. Just where was Obama for 20 yrs while this man was preaching? On the golf course? When I was a teenager I was involved in Rainbow Girls. When I was installed as the assembley leader I asked the pastor of my church to attend and have the invocation and benediction. He refused. He believed anything having to do with the Masonic Order was evil and against God. I left his church. I attended that church since I had joined it when I was 11. I was still attending the school that was associated with it. When my mother’s alcoholism was at it’s worse did anyone from the church or school offer me a helping hand? NO. Did the Mother Advisor of the Rainbow Assembly open her home to me after her youngest daugher had already gotten married? YES.
Just for a moment imagine if a white mimnister were saying these things about black people. Can you imagine the uproar????
Report comment to moderator
KIM post 79,
well of course the same may be said of Falwell et. al.
The issue at hand of course is the role and import of religion in politics.
In general, religious conservatives in this country have one position, religious liberals have another.
I suggest, however, that whatever approach is pursued by the religous conservatives will in fact become highly generalized by the country as a whole: it will be tough to put the genie back in the bottle.
When you say:
“Just for a moment imagine if a white mimnister were saying these things about black people. Can you imagine the uproar????”
I merely note that there is an uproar. I am puzzled at the lack of uproar over similarly hateful statements by Falwell which match fairly closely some of the hateful statements made by Wright in his now notorious sermon. But I do think that the public as NJLawyer points out will correct this difficiency: the public has difficulty make fine distinctions such as between what is ok for a right wing pastor but is not ok for a left wing pastor.
And I believe the country will be better for it.
Report comment to moderator
steveg post 78,
but once the dogs of war are losed, they often have trouble at remembering their master.
Report comment to moderator
But most of us white people dismiss Falwell and the public is fairly aware of what he is saying.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING
There is a big difference between Rev. Wright and Falwell and Robertson. Obama attended Wright’s church. I never watched Falwell or Robertson.
I have never paid attention to either Falwell or Robertson. I often thought they should just keep their mouths shut.
What I got out of the “Religious Right” was that Christians should vote. We have a tradition of not speaking much about politics at church. I have not heard any politics from the pulpit.
Report comment to moderator
kim post 82,
then of course you will have no trouble denouncing him and ostracizing any of his associates and the associated political entities and organizations.
And of course, if this continues to blow up, as jseidl notes, the public will be aware of what Hagee et. al (including Falwell) have been and are saying.
You might look at post 1.
This indeed is a “nuclear option”.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 83,
there is a big difference between what Falwell/Robertson said about 9/11 and what Rev. Wright said about 9/11 in his notorious sermon? Perhaps you should read the transcripts again.
I have not suggested we ostracize you. I am suggesting that if this is left to run its course, the public will ostracize the political entities which are related to Falwell/Hagee et. al. much as has been suggested the public will ostracize Obama.
Note that jseidl of WMB has also suggested this.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest we are seeing a cinderella problem.
The shoe is fitting, and once the shoe fits, the identification is made.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: #72 How does your sentence relate to these verses in Luke or the verses in Philippians you referenced.
So, pretend I didn’t go to Sunday School and give me your sermon.
That’s the spirit, NJ.
“Go for the place at the foot of the table”
is a paraphrase of
. . . go and sit in the lowest place . . . LK 14:10
In other words, by taking a place at table at Trinity UCC rather than with his social and intellectual peers at 4th Presbyterian etc., Obama will be invited to a more exalted place at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. By joining company with the lowly, rather than with his rich neighbors (v. 13), Obama deferrs his repayment until the day of the resurrection of the just.
“Look up to others.”
is a paraphrase of
. . . in humility count others better than yourselves. PHIL 2:3
That rule of conduct derives from the ministry of Jesus:
Have this mind [i.e., humility] among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he . . . [had a law degree from Harvard, etc.] PHIL 2:5
Report comment to moderator
Musing, there is always the possibility that some people don’t want to condemn Falwell (who’s dead, so give it up), Hagee or Robertson, etc., etc. Maybe they agree with them or maybe they just dismiss them and it’s not worth it. I’m just as sure that there are people who are applauding Wright! When it comes to the Christian “bad boys,” their actions were certainly condemned here, and the right had lots of help from the left — but the left didn’t consider it wrong or sinful. They just enjoyed the fact that the guys got caught.
Moreover, you are assuming that the entire attack on Rev. Wright is from the right and the right only. That is simply not true. Even Obama has now condemned the man’s remarks, and I think you’d agree that he’s a liberal.
If candidates on either or any side are sidelined and eliminated because of things like this, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. Another politician will pop up soon enough. Why this bothers you so much is beyond me. As my niece would say when she was four: “Who cares? Who really cares?” I realize, Musing, that you don’t have faith in the people and that your elitist “I know it better” is coming through here, but the people have the right to decide in their own way based on whatever they want. Whatever will you do with the great unwashed masses who need you to think for them?!!!
Now I have to read Scroopy’s sermon.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 88,
but of course you are not reading my posts.
This situation does not bother me, but rather I look forward to it.
You are correct:
“If candidates on either or any side are sidelined and eliminated because of things like this, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. Another politician will pop up soon enough.”
But of course as it becomes clear that a traceable religious background is a disadvantage we will see a lessening of religions impact on politics. It will be too risky to admit anything but the blandest religious connecton.
It does seem that you are not reading my posts, but it appears you are assuming what I am saying based on your presuppositions.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy — that’s your sermon? It’s horsepucky, my friend, this is twisted, and I’ll tell you why:
First, if a Christian is attending a church to spend time with his social and intellectual peers, he’s got deep, deep problems. He’s missing the point of attending church in the first place and hasn’t a clue what Christianity is about. We used to call them the high and might benchwarmers.
Second: On humbling oneself. In my old church, there were lay ministers. One day a socially prominent, smart guy attended service and heard this man speak. He was impressed in his heart. The next day he went to the church office and spoke with the real minister, telling him how moved he had been. The real minister pointed to the lay minister outside who was a trash collector by day. This the socially prominent, smart guy couldn’t take in, and he walked away — much like the rich young man. Too bad social guy couldn’t humble himself and learn of the heart from trash guy.
Wright is not equal to the trash collector. There’s nothing lowly about Wright. He’s a racist! Why would someone humble himself to sit at the feet of a racist? To learn what?
Had Obama sat at the foot of a trash collector whose heart was right, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing, we won’t necessarily see a depletion of religious candidates. I haven’t heard one bad word about Hillary’s minister, for example. Don’t know who he/she is. Couldn’t tell you who George Bush’s minister is, or his father’s, or Jimmy Carter’s, etc., etc. The overwhelming number of ministers and churches do not engage in politics, and the candidates who attend aren’t prejudiced by a membership in those church. Nor will they be.
Your premise is wrong, and I’m trying to suggest to you that you rethink it.
Report comment to moderator
As I’ve said, show me anything that suggests that Obama believes Wright’s nutty ideas.
See, the problem you all have is that there’s no sign that Obama is doing or planning to do Wright’s bidding from the Oval Office.
When we complain about connections between Republicans and right-wing preachers it’s because the religious figures actually have influence on the political figures’ actions.
You want to paint it as a double standard, but it’s not. If I thought Obama was planning to open an investigation into whether the government created HIV, based on Wright’s beliefs, I’d be worried. But I don’t see that.
I DO, however, see Republicans eager to line up behind religious conservative policy demands on all manner of issues.
So there’s no double standard, no liberal hypocrisy, etc. There’s a difference between one wacky leftist minister who does not have any apparent influence over the candidate, compared to a whole busload of wacky rightwing ministers, who DO have the ears of some in the halls of power.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 91,
I suggest the night of the long knives is only beginning.
But I also suspect that Hillary has a less flamboyant church environment. As you will note I did not say that candidates will not attend church, although that may be the simplest solution, only that they will attend relatively bland churches.
That no one has raised any issues yet about Hillary’s church would indeed suggest possible support for my bland model.
I do think it is your premise that is wrong, but I have no illusions that I can convince you to rethink it.
It is amusing, however, that you raised Hillary’s church as not being an issue, and we can also say that in this environment if Hillary’s church were in any way controversial, it would make the news very quickly.
I do appreciate your supporting my point.
Report comment to moderator
Kim,
Have you since then studied the Masons and realized your pastor was right? Their actual theology is much like Mormonism, and indeed no pastor can lend credence to them in such a way, though it can take courage to say no–and probably is hard to say no to a young member of one’s church! It had to have been doubly hard for him to see you leave the church over it, but his choice was right. I am glad that they were there for you when they needed you, though, and sorry your church was not! Indeed, many false religions put Christians to shame sometimes.
Hey, I’m curious–did you take Llama up on his offer (from Friday’s Whirled Views, I think) and call him? I wondered several times this weekend, and hoped you were able to work things out.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I really think you have a warped view of Americans, and I think you put them down far too much. I don’t support that view.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 95,
ah but I have a very high respect for Americans.
I also have a very helathy respect for negative campaigners.
So I will make a prediction:
1) the conservative Christian right is going to make hay of the Rev. Wright issue
2) this will snowball against religious interference in politics in general
3) Obama’s supporters really don’t care, and Obama wins
Of course insread of point 3 we have the other option: Clinton wins.
Either way religious interference in politics will be done in by the religious right loosing the dogs of war, and these same dogs of war will wound McCain whose supporter do care about such things.
This sounds very optimisitic to me.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER —
RE: racism: In order to be a speeder, you need a fast car and lots of gas. A lead foot isn’t enough. In order to be a racist, you need an oppressive social structure and the power to use it. A malicious mind isn’t enough. I don’t think Rev. Wrong is a racist. He doesn’t have his hands on the controls of oppression nor does he have the mind to believe that Whites are born to be inferior. The man has racial animosity out the wazoo, but that ain’t racism. He thinks Whites are culpable and incorrigible — not biologically defective.
While you’re correct that humbleness and humility are to some extent independent variables, the Bible does make the humble the beneficiaries of affirmative action when it comes to admission to heaven. The reason the rich have a harder time getting in isn’t due to bad behavior, but to stricter standards. Sure, a rich man never walked out of Safeway with a package of steaks under his coat, but he never made groceries for the poor, either.
The poor can be arrogant, stubborn, grandiose, arbitrary, judgmental and so on — perhaps even more so than the rich, whose behavior is almost always distinguished by one kind of excellence or another. Yet, their place on earth is humble and meek, and God gives them brownie points for it and people like Obama brownie points for hanging with them.
Report comment to moderator
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
No Scroop – I think the Rev. Wright is a racist by the definitions I found on Dictionary.com
Report comment to moderator
Well Klasko, there are racists and there are racists. Your third definition ropes in Rev. Wrong where he can do no harm. Your first two definitions are what counts, and I think it’s worth noting that Rev. Wrong doesn’t fulfill the terms of either of them. He could even plead an exemption from your third definition on grounds that he bears no animosity to sympathetic Whites, whereas the classic White racist in the South was intolerant of all Blacks, by definition.
Report comment to moderator
i.e., Rev. Wrong doesn’t hate all Whites, just the ones that get in the way of Black liberation. He doesn’t care about Whitey’s color.
Report comment to moderator
Guess it depends on what the definition of is is.
Report comment to moderator
At its core, Scroopy, racism is hatred. All people are capable of hatred, and that’s what has to be dealt with.
If you believe God gives out “brownie points” — and I have got to ask for the biblical citation that backs that up! — you and I are reading different books. I don’t think God says “you’re poor; your excused” “you’re rich, you’re not.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: I don’t think God says “you’re poor; your excused” “you’re rich, you’re not.”
Why not? I’m not trying to bind the judgments of the Almighty, but, like a justice participating in oral arguments, He has given out indications of how he is likely to rule, and most experts in divinity think He’ll decide in favor of the poor. We’re in good company to think so. Long before Rev. Wrong and class warfare, a pioneer in modern law enforcement, Henry Fielding, said the poor not only were the better models of the cardinal virtues, but of common decency (propriety) as well. He considered it to be a an irony that, while occupying nearly all the space in jail, the poor did the greatest service to justice.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!