Obama ain't Wright

By absentee Posted in | Comments (115) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

UPDATE: This blog was recently referenced at the New York Times politics blog as a post speech blog. For the record, I wrote this before the speech. Thanks!

It's true, Barack Obama is not Reverend Wright. Reverend Wright is not Barack Obama. That's the only disclaimer from Obama regarding Wright that's right. In fact it's one of the few things Obama has had to say that isn't an outright lie. What's amazing is the willingness of the Barackolytes to swallow his outrageously obvious dishonesty.

Americablog, for a convenient example, in a blog entry hilariously titled "Obama quells the media frenzy over the words of his pastor" pasted Obama's "vehement" (we know it was vehement because Barack said so) denunciation of his old uncle's cantankerous ravings (we know they are ravings because we have hearing and eyesight) with a satisfied air that left the impression of them brushing off their hands and patting one another on the back (or wherever Americabloggers pat one another) for a job well done.

You've seen much the same, I'm sure, at D blogs across the web. We saw Dodd and Schumer on FNS chalking this up to guilt-by-association, which is apparently not a reasonable tactic for Dems anymore, all of a sudden.

I've been out of town on business for the last week or so. Early mornings and late nights have left me out of the news cycle, but not far enough to miss the explosion of coverage on Wright, who Redstaters, particularly gamecock, have been on about for some time. The story is pretty big, which is OK, but it ought to be a lot bigger. It's not our favorite hobgoblins the press at fault for that, though. It's the people.

How easily the lie is swallowed. Barack says in twenty years attending this church he never heard these controversial remarks. I won't mince words: that's a lie. He's lying. He's a liar. There's simply no possibility that this is true. It is a bald and ridiculous lie. It's also a very lame lie. It's amazing that he would expect it to be believed, and even more amazing that it is believed.

... or is it?

On the O'Reilly Factor this week, Bill had on two guests with what should not have been surprising points of view, but nevertheless caught me off-guard. Hermene Hartman is publisher of a weekly African-American magazine, and Jasmyne Cannick, who had the title "BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTER" above her name throughout, and who is apparently a contributor to NPR.

These two women suggested that no one should have been surprised or alarmed by the Wright Reverend. After all, these clips represent something heard in black churches around the country every day, they said. Hermene also felt it necessary to add that the statements were out of context, which seemed a superfluous objection if the content was so totally innocuous anyway. They both suggested Bill's problem was that he wasn't visiting African American churches. Asked point blank if they thought there was anything fundamentally wrong with the message of Reverend Wright they responded "Not at all" "No" and "Absolutely not," and threw in a "I'm surprised you guys are even acknowledging he's a Christian now because for so long the message was Obama is a Muslim."

I guess "you guys" means white people in that sentence, sort of like saying "you people" only without the protests. I also think she confuses "acknowledging Obama attends hate parties masquerading as a Christian church" with "acknowledging he's a Christian." Not the same thing Jasmyne.

They also predictably trotted out Catholic pedophile priests. They accused O'Reilly of being a white man, a derogatory appellation if you weren't clear. Hermene invited O'Reilly to the Wright Reverends church, and followed up on her accepted invitation by suggesting Bill had "exploited" the story. They wrapped up ranting at Bill about how "his" country brought over slaves from Africa, lynched people, experimented on them, and Bill just basically didn't want to deal with that.

Not exactly "He denounced the old uncle" is it? Maybe people aren't swallowing his lie that he didn't know these things were being said, or that he denounces them. Maybe they accept he has to say it for the white people, like he had to say something different to Canada ... and really, who is whiter than Canada?

The country these ladies believe exists, the country the Wright Reverend ranted relentlessly over, or rather, ranted relentlessly over except when Obama came to church, is the kind of country one might go their whole adult life without being proud of. A country infecting people with designer diseases, experimenting on them, and actively engaging in racial cleansing and lynching would be a God Damned America indeed.

That is the greatest lie, and the Wright Reverend has exposed how insidious this lie is. We all know the culprits: the race demagogues, the democrats, liberal media, hollywood. This doesn't change it, though.

This lie is spread not just by fiery Reverends on Obama-free Sundays, it's spread by fiery university professors (when Obama was out sick of course). It is discussed in airline terminals while waiting in line for coffee. It's professed by "entertainers" during benefit telethons, and it is spread in lyrics and movies. At Redstate we love to talk about our big enemy, the press. This isn't the work of the press. This lie, that America is a black-hating, AIDS-creating, 9/11-inviting monster wasn't created in the news. It makes the news, sure, just like it makes the O'Reilly factor.

No, this lie spreads on its own, person to person. It's accepted because minority groups in America are taught they are owed, that they are being wronged, and that white people are the enemy. America, you see, just ain't Wright. This lie comes from decades of wrong-headed thinking and social tinkering by bored white liberals and their guilt-by-association indictment of all living Americans for all sins ever committed in her name.

The only way to fight the lie is with the truth. In a way the Wright Reverend is a boon. Maybe it's time this lie saw light. I don't pretend to know what will happen. I don't know where the coverage is going, I don't know where the lie will go. I do believe in the Truth, though. It's time we put the Truth against the Lie.

Barack Obama is a liar. He has lied about his church, he has lied about the Wright Reverend, and he and his wife lie about America. When Barack talks about unity, I wonder who it is he plans to unify, and who it is he does not intend to include.

For the Obamas of the world, America just ain't Wright. Thank God for that. I hope we never are.

and I am jealous of your skills.

This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

did he never have conversations with any of his fellow congregation members? Did none of those people cheering so loudly at this hateful anti-AMericanism ever bring these topics up in conversation? If he had even the most remote contact with this congregation, how could he possibly been unaware of these sentiments? Did he ever speak out publically against them? Is there any evidence that he ever proactively sought to disabuse anyone of such notions?

More importantly, how can he be taken seriously by anyone as a unifying figure when the primary message of his own church, and the pastor in whom he put so much stock, is so throrougly divisive?

How can promote a public message so clearly and thoroughly at odds with his private beliefs?

people who have just learned it. Black Churches and Social organizations are (my estimate about 50%) cesspools of hate.

The evangelical churches tend to be a little better percentage but those things are taught to black children all the time.

You know the funny thing is. IF the big evil white man has suppressed you with aids, drugs, illegitimate children, and prisons. Well then, you know how you can absolutely defy the MAN, and screw up his evil plans?

Well, get an education, don't be promiscuous, and don't do drugs. Seems logical.

But after generations of blaming everyone but yourself, and looking to big daddy government for a solution, I guess it is hard to learn another way.

I used to go into black American's homes and there was something I saw very often. There was this sort of shrine, usually on the TV set, and on it was a picture of ML King, and another picture of JFK. Sometimes there was a picture of a local reverend or civic leader as well, and usually a map of Africa hung nearby.

It is sad that whole generations of people have been raised to look to politicians as their only hope.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

where do you get that estimate from. Many times the black churches are the only antidote to hate in the their community.

are right in that a small (I hope) percentage of churches tend to preach hate. It has unfortunately become a crystallizing effect for those that are disaffected. I'm not sure what to do about it thought... seems that those that refuse to join the others (ie. join and precipitate in their own advancement) are always going to be activists.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

fieriest and one of your best. This is an absolute outrage and it should be a HUGE story. Watching the panel on Fox News Sunday this morning, I was struck by how uncomfortable most of the white commentators looked and how subdued their remarks were. It was left to Juan Williams to express the outrage--and he did quite the nice job of it, too. His take was equal parts anger at Obama for lying about not hearing these remarks and for Obama's cynicism and political opportunism at joining a church that would establish his black creds in order to run for office in Chicago--and then disavowing his relationship with his spiritual mentor when it became too uncomfortable to stay close to him.

The only thing that Obama has united is the Republican Party.

Erick has an excellent front pager up remarking in detail on Juan Williams' comments.

That's a funny comment about uniting the Republican party. I'll tell you another thing he is uniting: serious democrats with John McCain.

I've got some excellent anecdotes from the last week at a business meeting in California. If Obama gets the nomination we have some D voters coming our way.



“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

been rent asunder 7 ways from Sunday already. Every day there are more headlines about the growing dysfunction of the Dem Party, the delegates getting all bent out of shape, the supporters of both Obama and Hillary getting increasingly angrier at each other. As far as I can tell, none of them are playing nicely with each other anymore and they are not hiding it either. Well, that's what decades of identity politics will do for you, isn't it?

are making a faux bayonet charge. They are now defending Wright as right. Check their blogs tonight, they say Wright is right and they want to fight about it.


Molon Labe!

So I won't get to their blogs tonight! ;)

Let them defend this, it's indefensible - at least to those of us who don't hate (or profit from expousing hate of) our country.


Unless you've been confronted directly by someone under the influence of the "you owe me" mindset--it's difficult to fathom.

Many husbands travel and have to miss church occassionally. Frequently their wives attend when they are out of town. Can one ask whether she ever heard anything funny and told him?

Obama is definitely a liar, and he obviously thinks the American people are stupid. You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe him when he said he was a member of that church for 20 years, yet never knew what was going on. And by the way, even if that were true, it would still make him unqualified to be president. Who wants a Commander in Chief who's THAT oblivious to his surroundings? The only thing that should frighten people MORE than the idea that he knew what was going on is the idea that he DIDN'T.

As a sidenote, let me just mention how much I hate it when people talk about how this country brought slaves over from Africa, as if no one else was at fault in the matter. What O'Reilly's guests either don't know or choose to ignore is, THEIR African ancestors are the ones who captured one another and sold their people to the U.S. People who blame the big "evil white government" for everything annoy me to no end.

Are we not the last civilized society in all of human history to employ slavery? Did we not, evil white Republicans that we supposedly are, bring an END to slavery by declaring it morally wrong? And yet, we're still supposed to feel guilty about it, as if I owe my neighbor something because I *might* have a great, great, great granddaddy that employed slaves.

Maybe they should go back and read about how Jesus treated the despised Semaritans. They can follow that up with a study on what Jesus said about forgiveness. Mr. Wright, you have your homework.


Obama, his team & supporters, are showing they can't handle bad press. I think that Clinton will pull the nomination out, however this will still hurt.

Did the women say this is something heard in "black" churches every day? If true, that is maddening & saddening. If not, that is a gross stereotype of "black" churches. Churches I've attended have worked with black churches on projects and programs, & I've not heard this.

Obama is showing himself to be even thinner-skinned than Huckabee was early in the campaign. I had heard something from him in a speech on CNN where he was talking about how the media is doing all it can to discredit and smear him, when, in all reality, he's probably gotten the most fawningly positive coverage of any politician I've ever seen (even at one point CNN dragging John Kerry out to say "this is what I think Obama was trying to say" in an uncomfortably typical leftist moment).

We'll see how he handles this volley, however.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

Your right. The vast majority of black churches should be highly insulted at these accusations. It is amazing that these statements can be made and nobody challenges them. I have probably been in over 500 black church services and never heard anything even approaching what Rev. Wright was saying. How many preachers curse during their messages, I never heard one, and most congregations would be totally shocked, I mean shocked, if they did.

exposure would expose a pathology in the black community and just might embolden the majority to out the victimizers.

I pray

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

...were mostly suburban.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

shocked that more "black" churches/pastors have not come out against this sort of rhetoric. What that tells me is much worse than I imagined and that is scary in itself.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

"Bill did to us what he did to Monica Lewinsky, he was ridin' us dirty!" Now that's top-shelf stuff people.


false prophets. This post is both alarming and sad, if Wright's politiking is standard for black churches the nation over.

I haven't heard anyone make this point, but by lying, Obama is actually claiming he is the most ignorant man alive. Or at least in the top two. And he wants to be president? Commander-in-Chief? I think not.

I take the opinion of the two guests with a grain of salt. I doubt they've done extensive studies in the first place, and in the second place they were clearly being combative with O'Reilly.

It may or may not be common message in African American churches, but it is certainly a possible outcome of the debacle that we will all take it for granted that it is so. Which could in turn become self-fulfilling prophecy.

In either case, it makes their statements to that effect alarming, whether entirely accurate or not.


in black churches, and that TUCC and its ilk are fairly limited to Chicago and other big liberal cities.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Although Al Sharpton on Fox and Friends this morning seemed to reiterate the position that this type of preaching isn't totally rare. I also saw a DKos blog to that effect.

Still, though, I don't think it is as common as the O'Reilly guests would have him believe.


but that's just the midpoint of the curve. In other words, while a plurality of pulpits with Black preachers usually sound like TUCC, probably none of them, including TUCC, always sound that way, and it's quite likely that some of them never do.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

messed up.
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

When Obama loses the race for the WH (which he will) what impact will this have on the next Black candidate? I ask this because what I'm seeing here and that if 35-50% of black churches preach the same sermon as Dr. Wright, will America have a short memory. I personally don't think the average voter will ever vote for any candidate that has a history of hating America or being associated with any organization that instills hatred.

So, Dr. Wright has gutted Obama's chance of getting elected but he just might have a long term negative impact on the next candidate of "color".

Is this fair or is it guilt by association for many moons.

I have often thought that the first black, or even woman president was more likely to be a conservative than a liberal.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"

Of course, he'll be called "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom" but what else is new?


First of all, 35-50% of black churches do not preach the same type of sermons as Jeremiah Wright. That's simply a non-starter. From my personal experience with Black churches, I will say that Wright's "theology" and rhetoric is the most definite minority.

Having said that, however, I think it does highlight a problem the next serious Black candidate, whatever his political party or philosophy may be, has. There is a difference in the cultural milieu between most African-Americans and White Americans. Unfortunately, that causes unavoidable misunderstandings.

For example, I have recently said in another post that (depending on how you define it) I am unapologetically a Black nationalist. Moreover, I am an admirer of Malcolm X, most especially after he made his pilgrimage to Mecca and became El Hajj Malik el Shabazz. Indeed, in many ways I (along with many [though not all] other Black conservatives I know) think of Malcolm X as the "godfather" of modern Black conservatism.

As a quick aside, National Review magazine had an article about Malcom X being a conservative many years ago. Furthermore, I remember having a discussion with Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation several years ago where he too came to the conclusion that a fundamental thread of modern Black conservatism was indeed Black nationalism.

I am also:
- strongly pro-life
- strongly pro textualist in Constitutional interpretation
- anti-gay marriage
- pro-Second Amendment
- pro free trade
- pro much smaller government
- pro lower taxes
- pro strong national defense
- pro victory in Iraq
- anti-illegal immigration (although I am fairly pro-legal immigration)
- and personally I have had a fairly successful career in the private sector

I consider my positions to be bedrock conservative. But be honest, knowing that I am a Black nationalist and an admirer of (the latter) Malcolm X, are you more or less likely to support me for political office?

That depends, early Malcolm X or late Malcolm X? Because in my opinion, he was a flaming racist, regardless of any other good qualities, early on in his career, but while I didn't agree with everything, or even most of what he said, I found a lot more about him to admire toward the end of his life.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

If you tell me that you are a Black Nationalist and a supporter of Malcolm X, then it would raise a flag. I's what you to explain yourself before I voted for you.

But when you add that you especially supported Malcolm X in his later years, then I'd feel better but still would want to know more.

Frankly, someone saying they're a Black Nationalist gives me the same impression that I get from someone claiming to be a White Nationalist. Supporting their race is their big issue and that's not a possition that makes me happy. I'm a real "content of their character" guy and will fight racism on both sides.

Now, having read your postings here over a long time, I don't think the way you mean "Black Nationialist" is the same as my interpretation of that term so I'm willing to listen before judging.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I (was) with Fred!

You've made my point.

You both admit that I would have some explaining to do first. And this after you have "read [my] postings here over a long time." Now imagine how hard it would be for the average (White)conservative voter who is not a member of Redstate?

So what are my options. Don't mention (notice, I am not saying deny but simply not to mention) my positions and thoughts vis-a-vis El Hajj Malik el Shabazz and Black nationalism and wait for it to come out later, making it look like I was hiding something?

Or bring it out front and center and risk having it drown out the other conservative principles and positions I have?

Again, for this conversation, I am not even saying one course of action is better than the other. I am simply saying that any course of action is fraught with complications; making it something that any Black candidate, liberal or conservative, will have to deal with.

By the way, I promise a few other to write a diary on why most conservatives Blacks don't vote conservatively. This is actually one issue; that the real conservatism of many Black Americans is rooted in the "Black nationalism" that many White Americans do not like or trust.

More later, when I have the time.

Nationalism that is in contravention to American identity and unity, dis-inclusive thereof, or self-excluding may be a philosophical position a conservative person can reasonably subscribe to, but it doesn't mean opposition to that point of view is anti-conservative or that believing such nationalism is incorrect means that one doesn't believe you about the rest of your political philosophy.

Black Nationalism is loosely defined, but it is not a 100% subjective term. Is it not implicit in the phrase that one supports a black culture and identity that is separate from whites, and defines a history independent of American history in many ways? Support of what is essentially a nation within a nation is something I fundamentally disagree with. It doesn't mean I take it for granted that you are not conservative, though.


No big deal, what he says is true about America. Like spreading AIDS ?
Well if it isn't the liberals that are doing this, nor the moderates, nor the undecideds,[ they can't decide whether they want to or not] than that leaves only the conservatives. There's nothing they won't put past us.

You understand that liberals are against hate and as well are patriotic, or so tis rumored, but people do tell themselves funny things. Their boy isn't the Knight in shining armor they thought he was, so first denial, then rage. And with rage a target is necessary.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

This is just another one of the many reasons that we should not count Hillary out of this race. It seems like stupid mistakes like this are going help push the Super Delegates to Clinton.

For a perfect example of why we should not expect Obama to win check out the article on Not Counting Hillary out at blog.thevanguard.org

This blog seems close to waving off centuries of racism endured by black America. I just don't think we're going to win a lot of converts if we argue on this level.

"A country infecting people with designer diseases, experimenting on them, and actively engaging in racial cleansing and lynching would be a God Damned America indeed."

Black Americans do not forget things like the decades long Tuskegee syphilis project initiated by the CDC which kept infected African Americans from treatment so they could study racial effects of the disease.

Some people laugh at the idea that New Orleans could have been intentionally flooded after Katrina, and although it certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Katrina, the 1927 flood did bring intentional flooding to mostly black areas. Sure, pressure needed to be relieved from the levees to save the city at large, but try convincing an African American that flooding was without racial bias. Or any reasonable thinking human being for that matter.

Did you hear recently about the planned parenthood spokesperson pushing for abortions of black Americans, raising yet again the specter of racial eugenics?

One could go on, and these tragic facts of our racial past are in the forefront of my mind when I read this blog, and I think we are not seeing the bigger picture here. Racism still exists in America. Denying this is neither a reasonable nor helpful position for the GOP to take, especially into the 08 election against Obama.

Reverend Wright sounds like a pretty angry individual. I don't think I would frequent his church. But if Obama so chooses I think the prudent thing for us to do is respect his private right to worship where he chooses. I am calling it now: religion is going to come back and hurt us badly in 2008, if we engage Obama on this level.

On that note, if you've ever talked to a black American who knows well the racial history of America, Wright's comments are not too shocking. It called anger, anger at generations of racism and marginalization. We've made great strides in this country, but that doesn't mean blacks don't have a right to be upset about racism, and it certainly doesn't mean racism no longer exists. Just look at the race-baiting the Clintons are engaging in right now.

History is all that will help us with the future

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

You can't suppose that failure to accept as reasonable the idea that Katrina flooding was directed at Black Americans or that AIDS is being criminally perpetrated on Black Americans, or that 9/11 was our just deserts is waving off prior racism.

By what standard is the acknowledgement of the existence of racism measured? One is only cognizant or sensitive to the plight of Africans brought to America during slavery if one accepts as reasonable any disgusting race-based theory a descendant thereof cares to preach about?

Racism still exists in America? When you can explain to me how that simple fact is any way related to the idea that the American people are using AIDS to get rid of black Americans then I'll consider the point relevant.

That one has a greivance doesn't mean one has free reign on all greivances.

Just because my child's school forces global warming down her throat, I can't go to church on Sunday and accuse them of molesting her.

Wright is preaching that America is molesting black Americans. Calling him out on it doesn't call to mind the idea that one is "waving off" racism. At least, not to any reasonable, thinking human.


... free rein. Homos!


I am suggesting that Katrina reminded many people of 1927. I am suggesting that instead of focusing on the Aids conspiracy, one might learn more by actually reading about real historical racism managed by the CDC under the guise of health study. And once one is aware of these REAL acts of racism, understanding that black Americans might make these connections isn't too far off. They make these connections because they understand a broader, more institutionalized racism in our country, as opposed to the personal racism many whites seem all too focused on. I'm not saying you have to agree with them, or even engage on that level of analysis, but respecting their opinions (and their anger) would go a long way toward developing a conservative America that is not so blind to the complexities of race in this country. At the very least, I am suggesting these kinds of blogs won't be helpful in the '08 GE.

By comparing the historical molestation of black America to your daughter's school and their global warming curriculum describes well how far you are from actually seeing these issues for what they are. You'll find more than a few books on the historical raping of black America, literal and otherwise.

History is all that will help us with the future

if decades of New Orleans City Council members had shown some responsibility to their districts and enforced some kind of safe housing code. There is no racial reason for this neglect.


"I'm not saying you have to agree with them, or even engage on that level of analysis"

Yes you are saying that. For failure to do so obviously incurs the designation of race insensitive. Even in the very post where you say you aren't forcing agreement, you end with the very thing.

"By comparing the historical molestation of black America to your daughter's school and their global warming curriculum describes well how far you are from actually seeing these issues for what they are. You'll find more than a few books on the historical raping of black America, literal and otherwise."

The standard at play is that one must engage the Wright Reverends rhetoric as rational and reasonable, or one is racist or racism-ignorant. And isn't that a convenient way to win an argument.


that dumb SOB'S like Nagin want there to be a racial divide.

Or did you forget his comments after?...

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

That means they were born in 1897, and are reaching a sprightly 111 this year.

I do concur that there is a risk that overly assertive 111 year olds might disrupt our efforts at racial harmony.

But it would be prudent to look at other risks first.

Move on, already.

I'll choose this comment to reply more broadly to those who have replied to me (simply because this is my favorite comment).

Move on. I hear this a lot. It's as if contemporary issues of race are not influenced by history. It's as if folks should NOT have recalled the events of 1927 when Katrina hit. As if history does not matter in seeing who we are NOW and who we can become. It's as if racism is something that only exists in the past.

White liberal guilt. I hear this a lot too. It's a convenient way for us to defuse otherwise uncomfortable issues. Notice that no where in my posts did I lament about all the white racists tearing up this country. I made assertions on how racism still exists, suggested that black Americans tend to see racism in a different way than whites (broader and historical vs. personal and explicit). But I don't want to wallow in guilt, I want to look honestly at the issue.

Lastly, no. you don't have to think Wright's rhetoric is reasonable. I was/am advocating for respecting views of many in black America, even while you disagree with them (even while it might be uncomfortable to even listen to them); advocating that we not lose the context of race in America, and not fall into obvious falsities like racism is over, that it only exists when guilt-ridden white liberals haven't moved on. That's just downright silly, and if it in anyway takes center stage in the '08 GE, we're gonna get hammered for it.

But in order to not raise too much wrath, I'll make this my last comment of the day. I invite you all to think hard about this issue and not be so quick to fall into conventional attack modes.
History is all that will help us with the future

From the beginning I guess.

1. Katrina. Given that the reason Katrina was so devastating was the total incompetence of the local black officials in New Orleans, I'm having a hard time drawing any conclusion beyond "the voters reaped what they sowed at the ballot box".

2. White guilt. You couldn't spell "honestly" if you tried. You want to look at hundred year old wrongs and ignore all that's been done to right them. Is there racism in society today? You bet. Go to the Far East and you'll see REAL racism. Same for the ME. Same for Africa. Same for Central America. Anybody who gets their panties in a wad over racism in the US today needs stamps in their passports. Frankly, today most of the racism is done by minorities with their hand out.

3. You want to "respect" the views of people who are virulently anti-American and racist? You have your head in your nether region. Apply that same measure to David Duke.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

This much liberal white guilt is potentially fatal if ingested or inhaled.

The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how making English the official language of government in the United States would mean people speaking or posting up signs in Russian/Spanish/Yoruba/Portuguese/etc. in their homes or place of business would be arrested by the police.

Romney/Pace 2008

You're still waiting?! Makes me wonder why you didn't just think of the objections yourself. Surely you have the intelligence. Or is it because you'd rather have an opinion to protect?

I didn't say "official language of government in the United States," that's your wording. I was referring to the English only movement in the U.S. and specifically legislation that would restrict the use of foreign languages in private establishments. After all, I don't think there's much risk in our Senators breaking out into Urdu on the chamber floor.

Here's but one example, to prove such restrictions are possible in this country:

Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona, 1989 - challenging a city ordinance that forces business owners to limit the amount of foreign languages on business signs.

To use my original example, the Russians in Brighton Beach would be breaking the law if they left up their Russian only business signs (of which there are many, as anyone who's strolled through Brighton Beach can attest). Surely they won't be ARRESTED but again that's your wording, not mine. I simply pointed out that it would be unlawful to have signs only in Russian. And I find it odd that small government conservatives would want to force business owners to regulate such a thing.

But don't worry, I resort to calling those I disagree with Moby, too. It's a whole lot easier than thinking for myself.

Please excuse this egregious thread jack (but Martin started it).

Now I'm really done for the day. You folks love to pull me back in.
History is all that will help us with the future

The English Only movement, as I know it, is about making English the only language the Government communicates in ... i.e. no more driver's license exams in Tagalog, voter registration cards in Chinese, tax return forms in French, etc.

As for laws outlawing or demanding English on signs in front of private businesses, that's not part of the traditional English Only movement's raison d'etre.

My position is that if Russian store owners want to cut down the number of their clientele and limit them to just Russian speakers/readers, that's their concern.

Romney/Pace 2008

I don't think you'll get much argument about Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger and her vision live on in the very way she planned it.

Too bad we'll never hear a peep from Obama in opposition. I doubt his pastor (being of the left-wing United Church of Christ) mentions it either.

This whole stream of thought and attack is so weak and very dangerous.

I am a fundamentalist Southern Baptist. I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a pew and wondered what the pastor was smoking or ingesting to have such bizarre rubbish come pouring out of his mouth. Over the years I have heard from various pastors that Blacks are essentially stupid, that Jews want to destroy Christianity, that all Muslims hate us because we have VCRs and SUVs, that women should obey their husbands' every will without a second thought, that teenages with tatoos are demon seeds, that rock music is the devil's temptation, that homosexuals want to recruit every child in America, that AIDS is God's revenge on homosexuals, that the Mormons are a cult and not Christians and should be converted, that women who have been raped tempted men and got a lesson taught to them, etc., etc., etc.

Did I get up and walk out? Did I tell the pastor publicly that he was nuts? Did I challenge his Christianity? I never walked out but I brought this "Christian" perspective and my thoughts about it to the attention of the ranting pastors and the church deacons, I wrote letters to the church bulletin and I expressed publicly my disgust. But I did not condemn the men, I simply said I disagree with them. There were many, many times (the majority) that these men acted in a truly Christian manner and exemplified "Christianity." They were not perfect and were fortunate to have people like me around to point that out.

Then again I am not running for public office. Perhaps Sen Obama should have come forth earlier, perhaps not. This particular pastor did not get to where he is by his good looks, fortune or lack of dedication. There were clearly things that he did and preached that were positive and Christian. The majority of the rubbish in this latest tirade is not positive and is not Christian.

I need to warn those (Fox News, the far right attack squad, the Swift Boat equivalents that are attempting to make hay out of this) who wish to use this episode to attack the integrity of Sen. Obama. Specifically:

(1) There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians like me who squirm when they think of what their pastors, church leaders and the televangelists put out there. Attacking Sen Obama may well backfire, in fact based on my Palm Sunday School class discussion it already has. Something like this only serves to make Sen Obama seem more human and more real.

(2) We Christian fundamentalists vote. We are no longer walking lock step to the tunes called by corrupt people who have used us for their own personal and political gain. (Want a list?)

(3) Senator McCain does not really want an open discussion of his distancing himself from Rev. John Hagee. Count on the opposition dragging that up and pointing out the stunning comments by this joker. I am waiting for my friends at Fox News to really discuss Rev Hagee. In my book if you look at political wackos they're in the same league --- and neither candidate can be blamed for what either of these guys said.

If we really want to defeat the Democrats in September we need to stop wasting valuable time and focus on:

(1) The economy
(2) The economy
(3) The economy

Frankly I am more than a bit concerned about Sen McCain and his self-professed lack of knowledge of economics.

Smells like Moby.


Is it possible to come up with a more hackneyed listing of the leftist caricatures of Christianity?

I've studied with Fundamentalists. None of them would ever make this statement:

We are no longer walking lock step to the tunes called by corrupt people who have used us for their own personal and political gain.

The essential point of their beliefs is to try to be in lock step with God regardless of the opinions or laws of men.

I don't totally dismiss ILoveAmerica, although I disagree with him.

I think there are a few, very rare but still there, white Christian fundamentalist pastors who preach the things that he says. However, again, they are rare. My questions are these:

1) Where are the majority of white fundamentalist pastors in so vocally condemning them?

I ask them not so much because I believe that White fundamentalist pastors should be spending every waking hour condemning the (in my opinion) nutjobs in their ranks but as a question of equivalnce in that some seem to feel that Black pastors should be spending every waking hour condemning the (in my opinion) nutjobs in their ranks such as Jeremiah Wright.

2) Why do we, as a group, casually dismiss ILoveAmerica's allegations that there are many white fundamentalist pastors who preach such things but then argue that 35-50% of Black pastors preach like Jeremiah Wright?

From my experience, I think both groups are rare but, unfortunately, both exist. And I condemn both groups. I am simply interested in why some of us think one group is rare, if it even exists at all, while thinking the other group comprises "35-50%."

On what do you base these assumptions and why the discrepency?

for McCain to repudiate statements made by every preacher who endorses him. The preachers themselves have the same two choices everyone else does, anyway.


believe you. Name names or shut up yo face.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

serve as foreign missionaries. The SBC long ago made amends, not the least of which in their rescue/charity efforts after Katrina. The SBC is the 3rd largest such org in the world, after the Salvation Army and the Red Cross.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

then it's sort of like Catholics who reject Vatican II, which we protestants learned about when some of Mel Gibson's father's comments were made public and again when Gibson got his DUI.


is authoritative, i.e. believes the fundamentals of the faith, as opposed to liberals that pick and choose what parts of the Bible they accept, eg Jesus as forgiver, but not all those passages where Jesus speaks of sin and Hell.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"Well, you have to understand the *CONTEXT*. If you read Acts, you'll see that we live under a new Covenant now. God came out and said that Peter could totally eat lobster because it was clean now."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

context. This is Gamecock. A grown man. Phi beta kappa. summa cum laude. lifer in the SBC. also past regular attender of wife's HRCC.

ok, bird, that's part of two books down, many parts to go, or do you get it now?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The parts that are totally authoritative ("the Bible says "such and such is an abomination!") and the parts that have to be read "in context" ("yes, the Bible says that shellfish are an abomination but you have to understand the context, it was only an abomination because God wanted us to wait until we had sufficiently advanced kitchen quality control before we could eat them at which point it was totally cool").

Heck, I've seen arguments on this very website over whether Jesus turned water into wine (oinos) or whether we need to take that part of the Bible in context and really understand what was going on and how Jesus only turned the water into really, really good grape juice (oinos). The focus of the latter argument had much to do with how we needed to understand the context.

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of the whole "you need to understand the context" arguments.

Even when it comes to the "you need to understand the context of the pastor's racist rants!" arguments. I assure you... I don't. Stuff like this will stand or fall on its own.

The pastor, in this case, said awful, awful, awful things.

But when people start pulling the "you need to understand the *CONTEXT*" argument, I put my hand on my wallet and purse my lips because I know the next sentence will involve them lying.

Maybe not to me, maybe just to themselves... but they sure as heck aren't going to let their yes be yes or their no be no.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Life is tough, but you are having so much fun pretending that its not, that all I can say is

keep on having fun!

For Biblical scholarship, I go with Calvin, Luther, Barth, Bonhoeffer, ie people that gave their whole lives to it, ie experts.

And yes, some experts disagree.

see also faith

But I see no context in which Rev j-wright is acceptable.

The bottom line is that someone is right as regards the Bible and some are wrong.

Free choice abounds.

Scoffers beware.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

And, oddly, it's always to their own benefit.

The ones who enjoy shellfish point to Paul.
"Didn't God say that shellfish were an abomination?"
"He unabominated them."

The ones who enjoy wine point to Paul as well, and, of course, to Jesus at Cana. The ones who don't, and think others shouldn't, point out that the ones drinking wine might cause weaker brothers to stumble... and, anyway, Jesus turned water into Grape Juice. You have to understand the context.

Even the Amish do this sort of thing.
"Hrm. A tractor wouldst allowest me to harvest more grain..."
"Mightests we have a washing machine?"
"Beloved wife, understandest thou not that that wouldst change our way of life?"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If you don't understand Christianity, then don't criticize those of us who do for knowing a false teacher when we hear one.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

I'm not saying he is one, though.

I will say that I would not want to be standing between a devout follower of him and, say, a devout follower of John Hagee when people started throwing down about "What Jesus *REALLY* meant when he said that thing about 'I never knew you.'"

You have to understand the context, you see.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

...something about the blind leading the blind.

Ah yes, Luke 6:39...will they not both fall into a pit?

And Rightly So!

and it's probably one of the very worst false teachings to be shared by so many people. Peter had his vision just before he was visited by a Roman, a Gentile, and the lesson was that all are welcome to join the body of Christ, much as the unnatural act of grafting a branch onto an olive tree, as Paul put it.

The physiologies of humans and unclean animals are exactly the same as they were when Leviticus was put to paper. If you eat the meat of scavengers and animals that don't sweat, you'll get sick and eventually die. If your preacher is fat and you know it's not because of some extraordinary thyroid problem then you need to leave your church and find one that actually teaches scripture as it was written.

I mean for this to be a rare exception to my rule of usually not talking about certain teachings and beliefs. You have to admit, though, American health care might be in a different state of affairs if people didn't eat cheap pork products so much. It's bad enough that we have fat poor people; it's much worse that many churches encourage poor diets.


we're supposed to care for our bodies just as much as we honor all other providence. I could do much better to protect my own but I try not to do too many bad things to it all at once.


we could eat anything, even if sacrificed to idols, unless it would cause a brother to stumble.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

by eating pork products as little as possible. It's not hard to settle when my mother has well-prepared pork chops and that's what's for dinner, but by not eating nasty bacon every morning I find my body wanting to reject anything porcine when I do eat it.


" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

scene from Pulp Fiction with Jules....oops, that wasn't racist, was it?.. ;)

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

That's Peter, not Paul.

(And, yes, I know that the point of the passage is *NOT* that we can eat shellfish now. Even if you understand the *CONTEXT*.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

can eat shellfish now, in context!

So you learned something even if you resent it.


Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The argument I always admired was the one that said "if you'll admit to being the weak brother, I will never do this sort of thing in your presence ever again."

I never heard of *ANYONE* admitting to being the weak brother.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

And mocking people who explain that I have to understand the context of the stuff that he said.

It's like someone explaining to me that, no, the Fathers meant that the 2nd Amendment really meant that the governor could tell able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 35 that they could own guns with his okay but the Constitution doesn't protect more than that. (You have to understand the context!)

I read the words and know what they say.

And people who tell me that I have to understand the context and how it *WAS* an abomination then but now... well... Paul said that it was cool to eat meat that was offered to idols so that means that we can eat shellfish, so long as it doesn't cause a weaker brother to stumble.

"Does Paul specifically mention shellfish or does he say 'meat'?"

"You have to understand the context."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

All things are permitted, but not all things are profitable.

The mature Christian knows that when he acts out of love for God, all things are permitted ... but some things are impossible to do out of love for God. Unfortunately for me, I know I'm not mature, so I need rules.

But I'm casting pearls.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Let me ask then about the whole "gay marriage" thing.

Can I come to the conclusion, in good faith, that God would be okay with gay marriage? If I love Him, and love my partner, and I know that God made me in His image and designed me so that I would someday fall in love with my partner...

Could I, in good faith, argue that God would want me to be married?

(For the record, I am an atheist. But I am an atheist of the Southern Baptist variety.)

My next question is a follow-up: What is the difference between the abomination that is shellfish and the abomination that is homosexuality?

If God changed his mind about the one, might he not have changed his mind about the other?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Homosexual activity is sinful. Monogamy doesn't whitewash that.

Shellfish are not called an 'abomination' are they? But along with the other dietary laws, shellfish are merely forbidden to the Jews as a way to set them apart from the Egyptians, Canaanites, and the other -ites. It falls under the same category as wearing cloth woven from two kinds of thread. That shellfish, pork, etc. are not as good for you as other foods is merely an adjunct, I think. It's to set the Jews apart.

When the Apostles wrestled with the non-Jewish converts, they knew that asking them to adopt all of The Law (shellfish, two kinds of thread, etc.) was too much. It had been too much for the Jews, and had led to all kinds of misplaced guilt: it was supposed to set them apart, but it just made for failure and apostasy. But you're free not to eat shellfish and to wear cloth made from 100% whatever, if that's your conviction (or if it just rocks your boat).

But to the rest of us, they just said "Avoid sexual sins, and don't eat meat sacrificed to idols". Be chaste, and don't honor other gods.

Calling oneself "homosexual" or "gay" is defining oneself in terms of sexual fetish and the lifestyle surrounding it, rather than defining oneself as God's servant, a Christian. God cannot abide with such idolatry, nor with serving two masters.

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

Leviticus 11:10-12.

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

God unabominated shellfish once he realized that the world was such that people would be cool with it and the Jews no longer needed to be set apart, no?

How do you know that he hasn't unabominated homosexuality?

How do you know that God has totally changed his mind about *THIS* but not about *THAT*?

Is it an issue where I totally need to understand the context?

Because, from here, it sure looks like "stuff that I don't see is a big deal is no longer an abomination but the stuff that you don't see is a big deal still is and The Lord Shall Not Be Mocked!"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

But the prior post also had this question very close to the beginning:

"Shellfish are not called an 'abomination' are they?"

I say to you: Indeed they are. Three times.

Now that you know that God can change his mind on what an abomination is... how do you keep track of what still is and what is no long an abomination?

Because, from here, it seems to map closely with "if it doesn't bug me, it doesn't bug God".

But I only say that because you communicated that you had no idea that God once considered eating lobster an abomination.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"abomination". I didn't bother to look it up. Obviously I knew that shellfish were forbidden to the Jews, but I also know quite well that I'm not a Jew.

The only law I'm under is to avoid sexual sin and "meat sacrificed to idols", which I take both literally and metaphorically as avoiding activity which will weaken the faith of another. Oh, and to love God and my neighbor.

You say "picking and choosing", I say "free".

Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

for health or a matter of loyalty much like laws for armies given Israel's situation then.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I don't think any serious person wants to annihilate entire populations or stone homosexuals to death.


Did I get up and walk out? Did I tell the pastor publicly that he was nuts? Did I challenge his Christianity? I never walked out

Sounds like you enabled and/or marketplace condoned some pretty shoddy pulpit behavior. That kind of guilt might lead me to publish something crazy like this comment, as well. Of course, we lack the evidence that Obama took even the minimal steps you described in this comment to address the craziness exhibited by his pastor, so I'm not sure what you're meaning to address.

The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

I'm with gamecock. Name the preacher. Name the church. I don't believe you.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

re Barack's 20 yr mentor or defend him.

Both help us.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I know Civil Rights Activists were very careful about selecting Rosa Parks to make a stand on the Montgomery busses. She was thoroughly vetted -- a cross between Mother Theresa and Barbara Jordan, a pristine background, pretty much ready for sainthood -- they knew she would have to withstand a withering counter-attack. It would be tragically incompetent to pick the wrong person to throw into that firestorm. Of course, they picked the right person.

I've always thought the first black President would need super strong national security credentials. Military service like McCain, and virtual sainthood. Never go near the race card. We'll see about Obama. But when he started playing the race card and letting the press patronize him, add that to coming out of nowhere with so little track record -- well, we'll see.

You're gonna need more than one lesson. And you're gonna get more than one lesson.

who's "impeccable integrity and honesty" led him to withhold the name of the leaker in the Plamegate™ Affair from the Bush Administration, and allowed Scooter Libby to twist in the wind for three years?


“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Obama fed at the troughs of Reverend Wright and Jesse Jackson ... I find this amusing propaganda from the Clinton campaign ... ... not that she is indifferent to the image ... saving the White world from the oppressions of Blacks (like her husband, according to the NAACP). Does anybody thinks she likes Bill?

But I'll give Obama credit for not running a campaign of "white people suck" (which Jesse Jackson ran, but later realized that non-Black people made up ~90% of the electorate).

I'd like to criticize Obama's preacher .. . but there's a whole lot of other preachers who have been a bit lax on the whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" business.

"Lies" might be a challenge to correcr.

No doubt, Obama is an excellent speaker (though I'd put Governor Huckabee up against him any day) and this was a good speech … about race. What I was looking for from Obama’s speech had nothing to do with “… color … of skin …” My interest was “… content of … character” … Obama’s character and why his judgment would lead him to associate himself so long-term and so intimately with a church that has advocated and even championed many comments that Obama now condemns. Obama’s speech addressed none of this.

Gary Wiram - Author - http://afewdayswithfiggins.blogspot.com/

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service