Barack Obama's Church

Honestly, I'm not. I don't intend or expect to convince the minds of anyone here. I don't think Wright's views are correct by and large, nor do I think anything I say is going to improve Obama's chances.

I am curious as to what I see as a different standard and honestly want people to articulate why saying "The white government's holding black people down" is racist but "Black welfare queens are lazy and immoral" is not.

Both look at the behavior of a subset of a racial group. Both make broad stereotypes that aren't always true.

I've been told that it's apples and oranges, but how and why?

OK, so we have different standards, perhaps, of what a hatemonger is. Fair enough.

How are you defining racist?

Is the notion that the American government shouldn't be criticized, or is it that it shouldn't be criticized about race, or is it that the specific criticisms are wrong?

I obviously see that he's stirring/playing off of hatred of the government. But plenty of preachers stir and play off of hatred of aspects of the government when they talk about politics.

What I didn't see is him stirring up hatred of white people in general.

I don't think it is the same thing. A KKK member is talking indiscriminately about all "mud people" and generally them doing so through their very existence. Wright is talking about specific behaviors of (relatively) specific rich, white people in control of government.

It's more comparable IMO to people talking about the lazy blacks on welfare are draining our economy.

Or at least, it's harder for me to distinguish those two.

Let's say he had more fact-based criticisms instead of conspiracy theories where he justifiably blamed the government. Would he still be a hatemonger/racist?

Fair enough.

Is there any evidence that is what was attempted? Obama certainly didn't make any statements to that effect.[/quote]

I can't say I know much about the inner workings of Obama's brain, but it seems to me that it's certainly one possible scenario.

And what evidence do you have for that?

After all, there are plenty of other black churches he could have gone to. Some of them are certainly closer to his home, and some of them are certainly bigger.

Why would he go to this one just to get black-guy cred?

Especially if he's doing it as a political calculation that he would have to realize it could be costly in the long run.

I only mean that realistically, since we give our friends the benefit of the doubt, we generally only are going to be suspicious of their racism. I'd imagine it's rare that someone is going to confirm it.

You didn't answer my question though.

Should one disavow friends who seem like bigots? How about family members? Political supporters?

How soon and how bigoted do they have to be/seem?

Well, he went a little beyond 'the white government is holding people down', didn't he?

Your very first comment after saying 'I'm not interested in spin' is to conduct spin.

No reasonable person associates 'the white government is holding black people down' with 'the white government is committing genocide against black people, is evil, and deserves to be damned to hell.'

Hatred or intolerance of another race springs to mind.

You are having that argument with Paladin now.

Saying that all black people in the United States are being oppressed by a white government that is intent on lifting up whites over them is certainly a racist statement.

Certainly the later, with a dose of 'hate speech intended to incite people against other races is wrong.'

Yet evidently you do see someone making a racist statement when they talk about 'all black welfare mothers' in a derogatory way.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

If Wright is only talking about a small subset of White people when he talks about how evil the 'white government' is, how is that any different at all from saying a small subset of 'black welfare mothers' doesn't apply to blacks in general?

Care to point out where he states that?

You could just as easily say he is denouncing the white people that support these governments, considering we are a democracy.

Here's one of his quotes again:

Who is the 'we' in this case?

America.

Not 'the white government', the nation of America.

Again, you are spinning. You don't want to acknowledge how truly racist what he is saying is, and are trying to worm out of it any way you can.

Obviously that would depend on the context of what he said, and how he said it. If he said 'all white people are evil because their government is evil and oppresses us' then that's pretty clear.

If he said there are injustices in the system and we have to work to change it so everyone has a chance, then that would be pretty clear as well.

But the type of hateful rhetoric that Wright uses it's hard to imagine a case where he wasn't inciting negative action, even if what he said was true.

Yes, you would think it would have been quite easy for Obama to be involved in a church that wasn't as controversial as this one.

So either he chose a controversial church on purpose, or he was swayed by the charisma of Wright.

Either way, it doesn't speak well of Obama that he ended up in a church like this and chose not to leave after 20 years.

Likely just because of the type of hateful rhetoric being employed against 'whitey' and 'the man' at that location.

If you think Obama knew he might be running for President twenty years from then.

Lots of dominoes had to fall into place before that could happen.

And the first one was retaining his seat at the local level so he could use it as a stage to reach the Senate.

As a politician? The closer they are to you, the more likely their bigotry is going to reflect on your campaign.

As an individual, the closer you are to them, the more likely their bigotry is going to be apparent.

Either way, its not something you want to be associated with.

There's no record whatsoever that Obama ever told Wright he was acting inappropriately.

As far as how soon and how bigoted, I'd say as soon as you realize someone is inciting racism in public that should be the end of it right there.

The only difference here is the racism Obama saw Wright evidence was acceptable to the audience he was preaching to.

Now that Obama realizes that it isn't acceptable to the public at large, he is speaking out against it.

I don't see that as showing a high level of personal integrity. He tolerated it for two decades.

Agreed - not at all. Atheism and racism aren't even a remotely close comparison, and therefore that is another example of spin to try to equate the two.

Would you remain good friends with someone that said the things that Wright has?

Personally I'd find it embarrassing and would have difficulty seeing past it.

No, no. Not presumably. Explicitly stated about a half dozen times now by several different people.

Yes, choosing to accept someone as a veritable family member, advisor and mentor and giving them a role in your campaign is an entirely different thing than making a temporary political alliance.

Even if you are just talking about it in terms of Obama's political alliance with Wright back when it helped his state and senatorial campaigns, its still is more hypocritical because Obama is running as someone who isn't a political insider and who will bring change and a new hope to America.

I know you don't want to admit it, but it's quite clear to anyone who isn't emotionally tied to the issue.

And I'd prefer someone intelligent enough not to let a bigot into their house and act as their mentor and advisor.

If that was the only argument being made, it would be correct.

However, there's clearly substance to the charges of racism against Wright. It's not just a popular perception.

Clever debating tactic to pretend otherwise so you can argue popularity isn't truth.

Well, right up to the point it became politically inexpedient to embrace the pastor. Now he's out of the campaign and no longer an adviser or mentor.

Again you are moving the goalposts. Spin, spin, spin.

Hagee and McCain aren't close personal friends. They haven't been going to the same church for two decades. He didn't marry them, McCain didn't use his sermons as the title of his book, he doesn't say he's a mentor. There is very little to show that Hagee has any level of influence over John McCain at all.

If there is any influence, it is directly related to his endorsement politically. It's a political match.

Obama and Wright are a personal match.

Again, apples and oranges.

Define 'embrace.' Because if John McCain 'embraced' Hagee, then Barak Obama gave Reverend Wright twenty years of oral sex.

It's clearly better to be peripherally involved with a known bigot than it is to invite one over to your house and call him 'Uncle Jeremiah.'

And there's no way to spin out of that.

Its scary....the blind support certain people have for Obama...that it will even cause them to agree with racism.

Scary.

Baaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



Whites control the government = a white controlled government

The white controlled government says it never created AIDS. The good pastor says that the white controlled government is lying. That means he believes that the white controlled government created AIDS.

But you keep spinning like a sheep you are............

Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaa

We should rename busheep to obsheep

I think for some getting back at a group of people for so called ills committed against their ancestors is okay. Even if it is racism no matter which direction it is going in.

HAHAHAHA

Looks like Obama did it again: Rev. James T. Meeks



It's a breaking news story tonight so not much is out there.

Obama did what again?

Hang out with a crazy guy who likes to attack others. This one probably won't be so bad but its just funny.

Maybe, maybe not. I know that James Meeks is a bit older in terms of his controversy, but he is just as racist and bigoted as Wright is. The only difference is Meeks is a pledged delegate to Obama.

After seeing all the blind devotion that many of Barry O's supporters have for their Holy Avatar of Hope and Change I'm thinking that he needs a new campaign poster:

Poor Pardot! The best "defense" he can come up with is, "But McCain is no better." And this on a board where some of us, at best, might be persuaded to hold our noses and vote for the guy, but none of us really like him or actively support him! We dislike him personally, dislike his associations and positions, and don't trust him. And yet Pardot just keeps coming back to this and coming back to this and coming back to this and coming back to this and coming back to this...

At least something positive has come out of all this, though. After all the comments about Obama and Wright, we see that those on the left have finally learned that:

1) Saying bad things about whites (and, by extension, about blacks, Latinos, Arabs or whatever) does not constitute racism. For too long, any criticism of some other group has been met with, "You're just saying that because you're racist." But the left has finally seen that you can say all kinds of bad things about another race, many of them factually, provably wrong and even absurd, but that does not make you racist.

2) A politician can be very much involved in organized religion, including in a church that teaches crazy things, and let that religion's teachings influence his political positions, without that being a bad thing. For too long, they have criticized Bush, Romney, and anyone else who was religiously active, with statements like, "They are wanting to make America into a theocracy," and, "A politician letting his religious beliefs influence his political positions violates the First Amendment." It has taken this for them to see that politicians are allowed to be actively involved in a religious organization, even one that takes unacceptable positions (provided they themselves disagree with those unacceptable positions), and that their faith can shape their political outlook, without that being either a bad thing or unconstitutional.

For those two lessons learned by a large proportion of the left, at least, this has been a very positive happening. In the future, we will have a lot less accusations of racism, and a lot less criticism of the religious affiliations of politicians.

It's about time.

Isn't that about the maximum you could say for Pardot's attitude to Obama, as well? At least that's how it seems to me from his many, many posts against Obama-fandom.

yeah ok........

IMHO the left will learn neither lesson.

I'm just glad that military service isn't an issue this time around since the democrats don't have a candidate that served in the military.

Not to mention the fact that Obama hasn't been to either Iraq, or Afghanistan. So, I'd question just how up to speed he is on either of those two theaters.

I was actually thinking about that.

McCain was a POW, despite what he has become now.....how come all the idiots that vilified Bush for supposedly going AOL and not serving in the military, and in the meantime propping up Kerry for his 4 purple hearts and whatever other medals he got.....aren't making a big deal about none of the Democratic candidates not serving in the military?

The double standard is hilarious.

SurveyUSA's homepage shows the devastating blow this controversy has had on Obama's standing. Their polls are post-controversy but pre-speech.

If the post-speech gushing here is any indication, Minnesota has already pardoned him.

Black Jesus is forgiven.

It wasn't an issue for them even when they had a candidate who actually did dodge the draft and who "loathed" the military.

AOL? "You've got desertion!"

Oops, my bad.

And the racism just keeps moving along.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=65704

One of the comments on that link above talks about the election slate...

Now that's funny. Unite us, Obama! Unite the clans!

Okay, Obama delivered a key speech where he had his say, and what a say!

But now, as Archie Bunker might say, he needs to stifle. He's at his petulant worst when he tries to address every little countercomment. Americans, both supporters and opponents of Obama, now need to talk it out, hash it out, work it out, and come to a new equilibrium after this political-climate changing event ( ), and he needs to not be a participant in that. He can keep campaigning, but he should let this alone for a while.

He needs to let the scab heal without his picking at it or he's finished.

I prefer that he keeps on making himself look like the fool he really is.

Oh, does everyone remember the speech? You know the one that talks about racial stereotyping, how wrong it was, etc, etc?

.....

But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way." - Barry Obama

So sad, but I've seen this hatred of whites within my mother's side if the family from my aunts.

My material grandmother? Irish.

Not that one would think so looking at at five of the seven of her kids, but that sort of thing has always baffled me, and made me truly thankful that, for all the other issues I have with my mom, she left Oakland when she did.

Yah, I remember hearing him throw in white grandmother under the bus in favor of supporting his racist pastor.

Cause Grandma's liiiiiving....in the material world......

Anyway, I think Obama was being brutally honest when he said his white grandmother didn't care much (or was uncomfortable) around blacks.
Depending on your background you may have no dealings (or negative experiences) with minorities. When I was a kid we had zero blacks living anywhere near us for many miles, and there are many parts of America still like this.

Really now, let's move on with the race nit-picking and concentrate on the real reason I don't like Obama:
saying he would bring the troops home yesterday if possible.
What is this, "Name That Tune" between him and Hillary?

"I can stop the war in six months!"
"I can stop the war in three months!"
Then STOP THAT WAR!"