Okay, okay. POLITICAL opinions, wiseguy. ;)

Thank you. This allows me to finally state what I was thinking anyway:

ratbastid speaks the truth.

no, of course Obama doesn't believe 100% of what Wright preaches. I bet he doesn't believe most of the more paranoid claptrap Wright was declaiming about that the press has been shoving in our faces. It's just an issue of what should bother someone enough that he'll stop choosing a certain person as an authority figure in his life for his family. Obviously Obama got enough else out of the affiliation with TUCC that he was willing to overlook certain of Wright's, um, eccentricities. Obama is a politician - he makes compromises. That's life.

Geez, over 400 posts in this thread. Something must have hit a chord.

it seems to just be a general "Hillary Supporters Bashing Obama" thread

BTW, wrong as Rev. Wright may be in believing the US is behind AIDS in the black population, .

Wow, I thought you were going to link to the Tuskegee syphilis study....

I did respond to the rest of hat post in post 393.

It is sort of interesting and I have a number of theories on it, I'm sure the motivation varies from poster to poster.

I did find it odd that while I had not seen any of his sermons until a few days ago, I have not actively looked, nor have I watched any of the news shows that may have had them, it took me about five seconds to find a blatantly nutty, anti-US, statement from him that required linking and excuses.

I don't think anyone really cares on either side what he said. One just wants damage and one just wants damage control.

I personally doubt Obama shares those views, my feeling is deep down hes as white as I am, but as you say he is a politician, he used this guy when it was useful and now he is a liability.

Perhaps thats the fear here by some of the more cult like followers, the fear isn't that Obama might lose because of this, but that he is in fact what they so desperately hope he is not. Just another politician.

I don't think anyone here denies that he's a politician, though I wouldn't go so far as to say "just another." He's different, but certainly no political messiah. Still, as I've said before, the idea that he converted to Christianity and began attending TUCC for political reasons is rather ludicrous. It applies an unheard of level of prescience - such that if he's that able to see into the future, maybe he is the messiah ;)

It would be far easier for supporters to shrug Wright off and say "he just needed som 'black cred'" than for people like me to waste time here posting and trying to educate people about things like black liberation theology, which I've had exposure to and experience with long before this Rev. Wright issue came up. It would have been far easier for Obama to do the politically expedient thing and just say Rev. Wright was a mistake and move on from that. And if he were as interested in doing what's politically expedient as you seem to think (no doubt he's interested in that, but not to the level you seem to believe), then he wouldn't have freely written about his past drug use in his book.

When you spend time learning about Obama as a person - not simply from Fox News soundbites, but by actually reading about his background and what the people who have dealt with him over the years have to say (and what they have to say is remarkably similar, whether it's someone he knew back in college, or a student he taught at UofC) - then you find that, while a politician, he's certainly not "just another" politician. He's no American messiah, and he won't turn America into a land of milk and honey with roads of gold after 8 years in the White House, but he does have the kind of character I want in a politician. Not someone I'd necessarily like to sit around and have a beer with, but someone who is intellectually curious and makes a point of listening to and learning from others, regardless of the source.

Oh, and loquiter's right, except it should be reworded: Obama is a human being - he makes compromises. That's life.

I don't expect my politicians to be perfect, and neither should you. In the grand scheme of political imperfections, Rev. Wright is a speck. There are far worse flaws that he could have.

In other news: Clinton Pastor Backs Reverend Wright

Well, geez, nobody's brought that up before. That's an excellent point--if he's been sitting in the pew for 20 years, that means he joined the church in his mid-20s. Fresh out of law school, working as an organizer, doing the most basic leg-work of politics.... You really think he envisioned a run at the presidency at that point, and was shrewd enough to know--twenty years ago, mind--that the country would have turned conservative enough that an atheist would be unelectable?

This is the guy who waved away presidency talk after his Convention keynote just four years ago. But 20 years ago, he made a tactical choice regarding his selection of a religion? Come ON.

Does anyone really believe that prolonging the discussion here will have any impact on those who believe Obama is "pathological and dangerous, extremely dangerous" or who believe some of his supporters here are "cult like followers."

As I continue to follow this thread, I really dont know whether to laugh or shudder at the ignorance and intolerance.

edit:
Ooops. I wasnt going to post in this thread anymore.

Oh well, too late. I think it needed to be said again.

Has the government told you to be quiet?

I completely agree. It's a total waste of time, yet I have the XKCD wrong-on-the-internet gene :P

No, I came to that conclusion long ago. However, I would like someone on either side to address the issue I brought up in post #304...

Edit - NM I saw SM70's response a few posts down...

I'm sure you will figure it out, spin it, and blame the republicans for it :thumbsup:

Just so you are aware of who is keeping this "turd" subject afloat in the media:
(Thank goodness there is not a concerted, extremely well organized "Op" owned and financed by a group of extremely wealthy, hysterically committed, extremely conservative group of evangelical christian white men behind this constant "Wright" noise.....heaven forbid, if that were to happen!!!)

Twenty percent of the google search results are coming from on source: townhall.com:

The most dangerous men in America:

That's not the point. I was replying to this:

Which seemed to imply,to me at least that I was telling someone the had to "shut up".

I didn't. My reply was to show the hypocrisy of that statement.

On one hand Ratbastid was lecturing me about someone's right to speech, which I never said they didn't have. I said I don't believe in the pulpit they should say things like that.

But I pointed out that Imus, Stern, and so on DO get fined by the government for things they have said and that perhaps he supported those fines. Fining by the government is IMHO, the same as having the government say "shut up".

Also, Imus's job was called for and some, like Sharpton, were asking government to get involved.

I have not said the government need get involved in Rev. Wright's sermons in any way, have I? I never said he had no right to say anything, did I? Yet, I got the "freedom of speech lecture". Why is that?

The peculiar theology of black liberation
 

A very insightful article from the Asia Times www.atimes.com about:

• Black Liberation Theology
• Rev. Wright
• Wright's often-stated mentors: James Cone and Dwight Hopkins
• Examination of the liberal perspective regarding the religion, the leaders, and Obama

enjoy!

Thought this belonged here, even if after the fact:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,2414760.story

A tale of two racists.

Mel Gibson was apparently raised by a father that is openly and adamantly antisemitic. However, Mel Gibson's long standing public image and body of work do not reflect racist or antisemitic tendencies. He also struggles with alcoholism and on occasion has revealed the deep seeded programming of his childhood. He is a racist like a recovering alcoholic is still an alcoholic. Unfortunately for Mr. Gibson, he is both. Although his life's work, circle of friends, and documented public life showed no indication of racism until his arrests for drunkenness and statements made with abusive behavior toward the police, he was attacked and immediately labeled as a racist in the media. This will always be with him. He may have occasionally stumbled and revealed his demons in his life, but he at least tries to rise and be a better person. We should expect behavior that strives for redemption, a conscious attempt to be "better" from someone with such an upbringing.

We all know of Rev. Wright's upbringing as a black child into manhood, his service to his country in the Marines, and the good things he has done for his community. But he does not try to come together with non-blacks, he openly and without apology preaches racial hatred, stereotypes, and racially based anti-American rhetoric. Regardless of his heritage and past life, he intellectually chooses to perpetuate racism and the culture of victimization for opportunity. The hypocrisy is when we coddle these excuses and express understanding for such unadulterated continued hatred. There is no attempt at redemption or reconciliation in the actions of Rev. Wright.

....according to a 10-second clip you saw on YouTube....

At least Wright didn't say "Fucking Whitey!"

the
 

The accusations of anti-semitism leveled against Mel Gibson did not originate from his 2006 drunk driving incident. They go as far back as 2004 when he released The Passion of the Christ and many Jewish groups were upset over what they viewed as an anti-semitic portrayal of Jews in the movie. His arrest only reinforced what those groups thought of him in the first place. These accusations id not stick, and many newspapers reported that the controversy surrounding his DUI arrest boosted ticket sales for his movie Apocalypto which opened while this controversy was still brewing. Somehow, I doubt his slurred slurs has had any lasting impact on this man.

I don't know what you're trying to pull, because I can't see how you can compare Mel Gibson to Jeremiah Wright aside from the fact that both men took a boatload of heat for their comments. If you're trying to turn this into some sort of double standard where the careers of white people are ruined if they say something racist while the careers of black people are unaffected when do the same, it's destined for failure.

Please explain the point you're trying to prove by comparing a Hollywood actor to a community preacher.

I think when you accuse the US government of unleashing AID's upon the black community on purpose and lying about the disease, you don't need a longer clip.

What do you think there ratbastid?

You are correct in the accusations leveled at Gibson for the "Passion" and "Apocalypto". I believe they were a predictable outcome for a number of legitimate concerns and petty political hyperbole due to the nature of the the topic. My point is ... take any person who grew up with adversity and social programming, examine their lives, accept the obstacles, burdens and demons they carry, then assess the choices they make.

I'm not trying to pull anything ... I did say that Mel Gibson is a racist. I think he tries very hard not to be and we as a society should encourage those who truly attempt to redeem themselves. If the example of Mel Gibson was not to your pleasing, then insert a whole list of others from a variety of racial and socio-economic background that have overcome their adversity and are pro-actively asserting non-racial bias. Rev. Wright chooses to preach otherwise.

The longer we choose to rationalize forms of justified racism, we are enablers.

There is much more than a 10 minute clip, please read my post on the ministry of his church http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=419. There is more if you choose to look. The clips are not the basis of my argument. Giving someone a pass because of their history and heritage doesn't change the fact that they are still racist or a race-baiter ... I frankly see no difference.

I agree that was extremely wacky. I disagree that it taints everything about him.

I object to a man's entire career--a career in which it's widely agreed by those who actually know that he's been a powerful force for good in his community--being judged on a total of 10 seconds of video. I find it very sad that the good the man has done will be interred with his sound byte. I understand that YOU'RE willing to write him off on the basis of a single statement or opinion, but I'm not, and I believe that doing that is tragically short-sighted, black-and-white thinking.

Look, I'm sure I could search back through all the hundreds of posts you've posted, and find some combination of words you typed once that make you sound like a jackass. And I don't mean that personally; it's probably true for any one of us who posts regularly. So then I could put that quote in my sig, start threads about it, put it on billboards, make YouTube videos about it, put it in a full-page ad in USA Today, etc. And anyone who doesn't have some history with you would know you based on my cherry-picked quote from you and would therefore form certain conclusions about you. Would you call that fair? Or would you call that a personal smear campaign? And the people who know "know" about you--would you call them well-informed?

Here's my other question: Aren't you at ALL interested in why he might think that? Or is "he hates people my color" a sufficient explanation for you?

the premise on which this thead continues--somehow--to operate has not diminished in terms of its absurdity now that we are on page 11.

rather than repeat the arguments against it, i'll ask a question which is implicit throughout, and which surfaced in the transcript of that idiot hannity talking about what television would have you imagine liberation theology to be.

what it looks like to me is happening here is that conservatives are attempting to suppress politicized speech when its source understands himself as amongst the oppressed, when the politics connect that oppression to structural features of the existing order, and when that connection enables **political** claims (which i emphasize because they are NOT analytic claims--and there is a fundamental difference between the two--a political claim in the context of a liberation politics is about mobilization--it rests on information but does not necessarily encompass all its complexity. this is not to say that therefore anything goes: some claims are more effective and more congruent with reality than others--but on this, conservatives are sure as fuck in no position to complain given the fundamentally dissociative nature of many of the descriptive statements their politics rest upon...)

so what i think it happening here has little to do with "racism" as the right would prefer to cast it, and everything to do with associating obama with a type of political speech--oppositional speech that departs from the premise that it is ENTIRELY possible that fundamental problems result from STRUCTURAL features of the existing order and CANNOT be remedied within that order and so lead to a basic challenge to it. what i think is happening, then, is a form of old-school red-baiting. what the right is basically claiming is not that wright's particular memes are disallowed, but that EVERYTHING about his politics are disallowed because they represent a challenge to the order that conservatives feel, for whatever reason, they need to defend.

so red-baiting, comrades.
the new version of accusing X or Y of being a pinko.

how is this any different?

there is nothing of substance to this beyond an action of political suppression--not censorship because the right imagines that allowing selected elements to circulate serves their cause--marginalization of the position wright is constructed as occupying as a way of generating associations around obama with something Scary Scary Bad for conservatives--the acknowledgment of structure at all, of structural problems, of politics about structural problems.

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress anything. I'm not an especially conservative guy -- "world weary" is more like it -- and I knew that some of the more outrageous parts of Wright's sort of claptrap are not that uncommon in certain quarters. I just was amazed that a sensible, sane, smart guy like Obama wouldn't understand how it would look to people who aren't exposed to that sort of thing. Or maybe he did, but had other more immediate objectives that had to take a back seat for a while, and he figured the future will take care of itself once he was on his way. And in fact he wasn't wrong. So maybe he really is as smart as I thought he was.

Why does this thing resonate? Probably because to many people it's shocking. Most people don't think they have racial issues, and this sort of thing comes as a rude awakening because it makes them think their goodwill isn't being reciprocated. They may be wrong, they may be right, but I suspect that is genuinely how they feel.

i meant suppress in the sense of simultaneously make visible and marginalize by selective quotation and ridiculous interpretation at the same time.

the message is obvious: look out conservatives, this guy's a radical.

red-baiting. pure and simple.

My last post on the "Inequality" thread, details how and why it "works":

roachboy, I understand your example, but lets try to take political philosophy out of the mix for a moment. We don't have to be just white, black, liberal, conservative or communist to form and bear hatred. What is the solution? If we all truly want to solve hatred between races, why should we tolerate any? If we maintain the view that all racism as unacceptable, and since this thread is supposed to be about influence on a major presidential candidate by a perceived racist, it shouldn't be unreasonable to question this relationship. I'm sure Desmond Tutu could easily have a justified beef with whitey given his life experiences, but he chooses to promote peace and understanding. These kinds of choices are what I'm talking about.

ratbastid asked two very good questions:
IMO it's very important to understand what shapes a persons outlook on things. We acknowledge these things, perhaps apologize or make changes as a society. But where does it end? When do bigoted people decide to no longer use prejudice? White, black, red, or otherwise. To change something, you have to be willing to change. Rev. Wright chooses not to. That is his right. He now suffers public scrutiny.

If anyone truly hates someone because of their color, then are they not the very definition of racist?

...that IS NOT the way we do things....


["If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
[Howard Zinn, historian and author]

No, by definition they are a bigot. A racist is one who adheres to the ideals of superiority of his race above all other races. Semantics, I know, but I do think it's important that we get these terms correct.

otto:

there is no way to take political worldviews out of this.
fundamentally, for reasons that i have spelled out a number of times and lack either the time or the energy to repeat (and i don't mean this to sound snippy, though it probably does: it's just my 3-d situation at the moment), i do not accept the conservative-specific reduction of racism to a type of sentence, nor do i accept that "hatred" is meaningful in this context as a way of desginating anything except a reductive-to-dismissive interpretation of a discourse that originates with folk who occupy a position of exclusion from this order, in the main, and who by virtue of the meanings of that exclusion have every right to be angry and to enact that anger.

on the other hand, if that's all that was happening in liberation theology--i'm snippy and so everything should burn--i wouldn't be in this discussion because i would have nothing to say about the way in which the politics are being framed--because in the conservative-dominated version that we're talking across, that's all wright's politics are presented as being.

but liberation theology goes beyond this to a systemic critique of capitalism on the one hand and a view about building alternate, autonomous economic communities on the other--communities which are not dominated by capitalist forms of exchange, production, etc.

this is what i mean by selective quotation designed to trivialize a politics that at some level or another more conservative folk find threatening on the one hand, and the simultaneous use of those selective quotations to do political damage to obama.

short alternative version: to accept your question, i'd also have to accept the way in which wright's politics are framed as adequate: i don't.

is this still being debated? seriously?

It's my fault, sorry. I had the audacity to post an editorial written by a white member of Rev. Wright's church which did little but put the thread back in the new posts window. I made a mistake.

And I agree with everything roachboy has said here.

This video is exactly what this thread is like.

In this video, an unnamed Fox News "journalist" is attempting to Gotcha! a preacher who is close with Wright (whose name I can't find). No amount of reason or sanity can ever overcome the "journalist's" unreasoning assertion that Wright is a bigot racist hater--he's not listening, he doesn't care, and most of his "questions" start with "Yeah, but...". Guy's a professional "journalist"--by which I mean, he's getting paid for this hackery. And he gets schooled.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F0wvQMqSzTM&rel=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F0wvQMqSzTM&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Heh, Fox clearly didn't know what it was doing if they thought they were going to get Fr. Pfleger from St. Sabina to criticize Rev. Wright. I've visited St. Sabina and met Fr. Pflager - it's not worth messing with him. This is a Catholic priest who has a black jesus crucifix in his church - and gets away with it.

Fox and it's viewers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

Wright is a bigot racist. There's no contending that fact now, period end of the damn story. Obama's support of the man raises some serious questions...

Questions that raise doubts on his fitness for office of the presidency. Of course, none of the other candidates are people that I would call worthy either.

But you lefties should really stop apologizing for this racist moron. It makes you look like liars.

Yep. Those lying lefties.:rolleyes:

We all know how left Mick Huckabee is.

I hadnt seen that...

But Huckabee, IMHO, is one of the biggest idiots ever to have the pleasure to run for nomination.

Methinks his religious fundamentalism is getting the better of him... like it does on most issues. He'd rather defend a bigot that is as such because of religious reasons than to let the secular community score a point.

no one is defending Wright

saying Obama=Wright is about the most idiotic thing i've heard

I dont think so.

I have no problem with calling out the competency and intentions of GWB for holding personal audiences with the scum of the earth like Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard, and I dont think the left does either.

Lets not apologize for the unacceptable alliances of politicians on either side.

The secular community? This whole Wright thing has nothing to do with the secular community scoring points. Secularism doesn't really have anything to do with this. A lot of "Wright apologists" and Obama supporters are secular. Huckabee was essentially taking the same side as a whole slew of secularists.

If Huckabee were really the rabid fundamentalist you paint him to be, there's no way he'd be defending Wright simply because they are both Christian. Wright's ultra-liberal flavor of Christianity is practically the exact opposite of Huckabee's conservative flavor of Christianity. Huckabee was being reasonable, and it is interesting to me that you would attempt to rationalize it as being the result of religious fundamentalism.

SO.... I don't know if you watched that video, but this response is SHOCKING to me. I'm utterly floored that THIS could be how you answer this. And that you don't see that you're MAKING MY POINT for me.... Can you REALLY be so blind?

I'm over here posting a video where all kinds of excellent reasoned argument and actual opinion of someone who KNOWS THE GUY is replied to with, "Well, but he's a racist bigot hater". No thinking going on. No counter-argument. Thoughtless talking-point namecalling in the guise of "journalism". That was my point.

Your response to that is "Wright is a bigot racist."

No thinking. No counter-argument. Thoughtless talking-point namecalling in the guise of "discussion".

I'm SO done with Tilted Politics. If this is the level of our discourse, people, it's FUCKING HOPELESS.

No you damn ratbastid...NO!!! Don't forget there's been some interesting discussion in this thread as well.

I had some other thoughts about this, but I'm not in the mood to formulate an intelligent post right now. Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry. Let's just say that based on what I've been exposed to, I don't see the equivalence of Wright to Robertson or Hagee as being straightforward, nor am I concerned that Obama may have an underlying plan to put little black gloves on the right hand of every boy and girl in public schooling.

Now, we could always annex Africa....that might be an interesting economic plan....

Call me a Rev. Wright apologist. I really have no problem with what he said.

I mean, talk about white guilt...I listened to his video and, as a white person, not for one second did I feel offended, targeted or referred to in any way. In fact, I found myself nodding my head.

So you may formally call me a Rev. Wright apologist, but I challenge you to come back here and call me a moron.

Do YOU think the government unleashed AIDs on the blacks of America on purpose?

Did you nod your head?

No, I do not.

But Rev. Wright is hardly alone in the world in sharing this suspicion. I've heard it before from respected black leaders. And, even though I've never looked into it, I suspect there are some pretty convincing conspiracy theories to support such a point of view. Especially a point of view that comes from a nearly 70 year old black man in America. I do not begrudge the man for holding this opinion and I certainly do not see it as racist.

So as long as someone something stupid, and other people believe something stupid its ok?

Do you apologize for racist old white men for their point of view?

Do you think such unsupported claims help foster racial harmony or are in fact designed to continue racial hatreds? This isn't just some guy, but the leader of a church don't forget.

If I said 'Aids was a black plague, sent to us from Africa itself, designed to kill the white man' would you say I was racist?

I don't see it as either racist or a design.

And it makes not one iota's difference in my support of Barack Obama.

Way to dodge.

Ustwo:

1. A nitpicky point, but what the fuck does that first sentence mean?

2. What have the people who have said something stupid actually done based on their thoughts? I'm more interested in what Jeremiah Wright has profited from his viewpoints than I am in what particular thing he said during a sermon. Does he rise to the level of a Pat Roberston / John Hagee? And if so, which I doubt (although maybe that's because of lack of opportunity due to lack of resonance of liberation theology vs. good old tried-and-true Baptist/Presbyterian theology) how does that make Obama any different, in this respect, from other political candidates. You have to be religious to be electable, and I'm not surprised that a black candidate is religious with a black/back-to-Africa flavor. I don't give two shits about Obama, personally, but this is hardly the reason I'd be against the guy...at least within the context of the candidates that are running.

I didn't dodge anything.

I've stated plainly.

I do not think Rev. Wright is a racist.

I don't have a problem with Rev. Wright being the minister of Barack Obama's church.

I will vote for Barack Obama if I get the chance.

Just because I don't subscribe to your outlook on the subject doesn't mean I am dodging. It only means that I can not satisfactorily assauge your response to the man because we are indeed that diverse in our points of view.

And yes, I think it is 'ok' for Rev. Wright to think and believe whatever he wants. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Doesn't mean I have to raise my fist in outrage either.

Edited and a said got lost.

So as long as someone said something stupid, and other people believe that something stupid, its ok?

I personally don't give a shit about Rev. Wright and his ilk out there, the world is full of assholes, but I do find the logical hoops the Obama supporters go through to justify it amusing to say the least.

Obama used the guy to be 'more black' and it backfired a bit. If people would just wake up to Obama being what is so obviously is, a politician, then they wouldn't feel the need to make convoluted justifications for his association with someone like Rev. Wright.

I've never subscribed to the illusion that Barack Obama is anything but a politician.

Next?

U2: are you more intoxicated than normal? You're leaving words out of your posts...twice now! Egads! As I said, I definitely agree that Obama is a politician...but as far as who I can stomach as religious icon-connected-to-a-politician...from what I've heard this Wright chap actually does some community service and channels his energy there. Robertson has the fucking 700 club for fuck's sake. Maybe that's only because Wright hasn't had the chance for a national audience aimed at spiritual healing and donation-giving -thank you Jesus - due to his particular theological bent...but based on what I've seen, he's just a pissed off old black dude. Hard to blame him for that. I don't see what Robertson has to be pissed off about. I don't really blame him for being suspicious in his outlook, or critical of US foreign policy.

At the end of the day, if a white politician were close to Pat/Hagee/etc (as appears to be the flipside of this argument) I'd say "So what exactly are you so pissed off about?"....they'd have a hard time answering me cogently. If I asked the same thing of Obama/Wright...I think they'd have some legitimate claims.

No logical hoops: besides the AIDS thing, I pretty much agree with the things he's said. Of course, as I've alluded to before, I'm no stranger to liberation theology and, in many ways, I prefer it over other theologies, whether it is focusing on blacks, latinos, or poor whites. There can be (and is) a liberation theology for each. One of the core points of liberation theology in general is that Jesus is not black, white, hispanic, middle eastern, jewish, or anything else in particular. Jesus is whatever he needs to be to make him resonate with you as a symbol and champion of the oppressed. Hence why Fr. Pflager has a very large black Jesus in St. Sabina. Not because Jesus was physically black - that doesn't matter - but because a black Jesus helps the message resonate best with the black Catholic community Fr. Pflager preaches to.

There's really no evidence that Obama used Rev. Wright and Trinity to be more black. If you take some time to learn about him and his life, it's pretty clear that he has struggled with his identity all his life, trying to figure out where he stands in terms of race as well as in terms of family, having grown up in a single parent household. It's no mistake that his first book focused almost entirely on his search to connect with the heritage he lost when his father left. Aside for being pretty ridiculous to think that Obama was trying to be "more black" 20 years ago when, there's no evidence of that whatsoever.

The fact he's a politician is a totally separate issue, and for the 1000th time I haven't seen anyone here claim he isn't. There were very clearly other presidential candidates who were less of politicians than Obama is, and they're no longer in the race in no small part because of it. You have to be a politician to make it this far.

Holy crap! I just realized, reading through this post, that Obama is a fucking politician. Whoa! I might have to rethink my vo... Nope! Still voting for the man.

Wait....I thought AIDS was God's retribution for being gay.

“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
-- Jerry Falwell

Do you think he discussed that with Bush during his many "spiritual" visits with Bush in the White House before his death?

So you would also support a white presidential candidate that practices white liberation theology who draws wisdom and guidance from an equally charismatic white bigoted preacher? While I would not accept any form of racial bigotry, at least you are honest in stating your support for equal opportunity in the enabling of racial bigotry.

I wish we lived in a world where this would be responded to.

I came across an interesting story in the news the other day.

The story starts about 25 or so years ago when Alice Brown, a white southern woman dropped her daughter off at Princeton....only to learn that her daughter had (gasp!) a black roommate:

"I was horrified," recalled Brown, who had driven her daughter up from New Orleans. Brown stormed down to the campus housing office and demanded Donnelly be moved to another room.

The reason: One of her roommates was black.

"I told them we weren't used to living with black people — Catherine is from the South," Brown said...

....

Donnelly (the daughter), now 44, captained the basketball and volleyball teams. She was the homecoming queen. And she racked up science and math awards, often with the help of her mother.

But the "Three R's" weren't the only thing Donnelly learned from an early age. There was a fourth one. Her mother and grandmother filled her head with racist stereotypes, portraying African-Americans as prone to crime, uneducated and, at times, people to be feared.

Brown, 71, explains that she was raised to think that way. She recalls hearing her grandfather, a sheriff in the North Carolina mountains, brag about running black visitors out of the county before nightfall. And Brown's parents held on to the n-word like a family heirloom...

...

When Brown heard about Barack Obama's former pastor — his angry rants against white America — she didn't like it. But she understood. "If I had been treated the same way blacks have been treated," she says, "I'd be resentful, too."

***

The black roommate......Michelle Robinson Obama
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...mate_0413.html

Its ironic and quite frankly, very discouraging, that this 71 year old white woman, raised in intolerance, can now "understand" the anger (although she draws the line at interracial marriage).....yet some of the younger, educated, urbane white guys here still dont get it.

But you see this is the crux here. I don't see Rev. Wright's comments as racial bigotry. They are comments against a system of oppression. Calling it racist is a misnomer.

For someone who claims to be enlightened in social and political issues, I'm very surprised that you would tote this line of apology for any form of bigotry. Unless someone makes an intellectual attempt to rise above, especially someone with Rev. Wright's aptitude and abilities, they are playing on their congregation's emotions to maintain a power position and will of course gladly accept the assistance of all useful idiots.

Have the apologists for the likes of racial bigots such as Rev. Wright developed a fresh ambiguous rationalization for the good Reverend's new $1.6M dollar mansion in a gated 98% white neighborhood with millions to maintain a grand lifestyle.

Wow ...black liberation theology sure pays!! Could it work for me? ... at least for Rev. Wright as he plays golf at his exclusive golf course (which backs up to his new estate) with all his new rich white buddies.

Of the two, who would you consider the best example of someone rising up from hardships and racial injustice to become a leader, a healer, spreading peace, love, and understanding ... Desmond Tutu or Rev. Wright?

Check out Rev. Wrights new ghetto home. This Chicken has indeed come home to roost!

enjoy!
<object width="512" height="323"><param name="movie" value="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.1.14" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="flashVars" value="id=7175695&vid=2283933&lang=en-us&intl=us&thumbUrl=http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/2531/61396439.jpeg" /><embed src="http://d.yimg.com/static.video.yahoo.com/yep/YV_YEP.swf?ver=2.1.14" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="323" allowFullScreen="true" flashVars="id=7175695&vid=2283933&lang=en-us&intl=us&thumbUrl=http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/i/bcst/videosearch/2531/61396439.jpeg" ></embed></object>

I believe it would only be fair if dc answered UsTwo's question first. dc's response was a redirect or duck to UsTwo's questions.

LOL......you can rationalize all you want...you can post videos...you can make comparisons to Tutu.............

.......but you still dont get it and you are still unwilling to understand the anger and resentment.

And as to Ustwo's question....I dont accept all the Wright said, including the AIDS comments. I condemn many of his comments in the same manner as Obama condemned them.

...but I do understand why an older black man may have that anger and resentment.

... and I dont hold Obama guilty by association any more than I would hold Bush guilty by association of hosting intolerant bigots like Falwell and Robertson in the White House.

If you had even an inkling of an understanding of what liberation theology is about, you'd know how ridiculous it is for you to be calling it bigoted. Simplified to its core, liberation theology is merely about focusing on Jesus as savior from oppression, and on the ways in which Jesus' journey is similar to whatever the journey of the specific community is. In the Mexican American community (particularly near the southern border), for example, this means focusing on Jesus' Galilean roots - an area which had a mixed culture, in some ways Judean and in other ways Samarian, much like Mexican Americans are often rejected by Americans as not American enough and also by Mexicans as not Mexican enough. It is by focusing on these Galilean roots, and on the meaning of Jesus choosing to be born as a culturally mixed person, that Mexican Americans can identify with Jesus in one of their primary struggles. Jesus becomes someone they can look up to as conquering their status as an unaccepted people. Not that I really think you will, but if you actually care to learn more about the concept I recommend .

For black people, liberation theology takes on a different meaning. In this case, you have a group of people who are disproportionally punished in the criminal justice system, who live in disproportionate poverty, and who are disproportionately represented in leadership positions, among other things. The fact is, there are only two explanations: either black Americans are inferior to white Americans, or there continue to be external issues that exacerbate the problem, or at the very least, fail to make up for previous problems. If you want to talk about what's bigoted, it's saying that the entire black community has no one else to blame but itself for the fact that a black male has a 32% chance of serving prison time compared to a white male having a 6% chance. There is no other way to interpret that other than saying blacks are morally inferior, and I have no qualms about saying if you believe there are no external factors, you are a bigot.

So...since there are external factors, regardless of what they are, black Americans are an oppressed people in one way or another. Whether the chains are literal as in the past, or figurative as in the present (and, in 32% of black males case, still literal). Within Christianity, Jesus is the ultimate champion of the oppressed, having been oppressed himself, and having been born to a lowly tradesman (note, I'm not bothering to take into account what may or may not be historically accurate with this, because that's irrelevent when it comes to theology, particularly in the case of liberation theology). Black liberation theology is about overcoming oppression, with Jesus as inspiration and, no pun intended, as a brother. What it does not do is paint all white people in the same light, which is what you apparently would like to pretend it does. But it has no reservations about calling out white people - or black people - who do not stand up for what is just, particularly in the case of the black community. If you care to actually learn more about this, I recomment Douglas argues - rightly, IMO - that Jesus must be seen as representative of all that is oppressed. He is black, he is a woman, he is homosexual, etc. Or whatever applies to some other particular culture. The point is simple: what he is not is a representation of those in power. In the case of America (generally speaking), he is certainly not white.

Finally, no, I wouldn't have a problem with an Appalachian liberation theology, were one to develop. Again, it is about focusing the Jesus story on its relevance to the applicable community's struggles, and there are no doubt struggles that poor whites face that the Jesus story can apply to more specifically than "believe in Jesus and you'll get to Heaven" which, conveniently, helps keep people's minds off the struggles in their real life now.

In many ways, the Christian religion, like religions before it, has become tied with the state in the sense that it helps distract people from their reality. At least when you're talking about mainstream Christianity, it has certainly become the religion of the comfortable people rather than a religion which specifically relates to the poor over against those who are well-off. The Jesus movement, while not a direct challenge to Roman power, was certainly not a happy-go-lucky "it's OK that everything sucks cause when we die we'll go to a magical place" movement. For one thing, the concept of the Kingdom of God being a place separate from Earth, and a reward you get after you die, came well after Jesus died. Liberation theology, in whatever form, is one way of reclaiming the Jesus story to learn lessons about life and challenges in the here and now, rather than to learn what to do so that you can go to Heaven after you die and leave your miserable life here.

So, yes, liberation theology often finds itself necessarily opposed to certain institutions and people. But so is real Christianity if you actually pay attention to its messages. "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'" (Matthew 19:23-24, NRSV) That's pretty militant talk when you consider what it means to enter the Kingdom of God. No, Jesus isn't proclaiming that the poor should violently overthrow their oppressors, but he is very clearly saying that wealthy people are morally bankrupt and unworthy of god's love. Considering the context of the statement, he might as well have been saying "God damn Rome!" And, well, we all know how the people in power felt about him saying such things.

Bigotry I have a problem with. But I also have a problem with religion as a tool of distraction, and as a tool for - intentionally or not - preventing challenges to the status quo. Liberation theology is not about bigotry, but it is about challenging that status quo and recognizing that Jesus is always on the side of the oppressed, no matter how many times millionaire Pat Robertson prays.

I'm not referring to the clip that ratbastid continues to rail about. Wright's ministry is racially exclusive and promotes a black/afro-centric philosophy putting race and allegiance to Africa as prominent. He and his successor are outspoken black victimization proponents and the tenants of his theology require strict adherence ... see one of my earlier posts on black liberation theology copied and quoted directly from the Trinity Church website.

What system of oppression do you speak of? An official policy? Laws? Voting machines? MS Vista? .... well that's a form of oppression on all of us. Are these systems of oppression anything more than a buzzword, a great way to get a mansion, or a fear to let go of the past, to let go of the power mechanism, so we can all move forward?

Funny, I'm pretty positive this has been completely disproven in this thread, what with mentions of various white congregants, and Rev. Wright even insisting on a black congregant not calling off her wedding to a white fiance.

For one, I understand completely what black liberation theology is. Whether you agree with that is of no concern to me. I also notice how you allow qualified white liberation theolgies like Appalachian or as you stated previously "poor white". What about the "Typical White Person"? Doesn't seem to float with your hypocrisy, does it?

Back to the point of the thread ... and BTW religion is not the question here. Do we trust the judgment of a presidential candidate who is so closely aligned with an openly bigoted character like Rev. Wright? It's that simple. The man was 50 years old when Obama joined the church, not the old codger some want to make him out to be. The 80's were not the 60's in Chicago. Most of the nation has moved forward regarding open bigotry. Rev. Wright has made a living from it.

How about this: Rev. Wright peppered in some really irresponsible claims during his sermons, including the idea that AIDS was created to kill black people. Were they stupid? Not until the media got ahold of them. Up until the tenants of spin alley, it was simply irresponsible, and I continue to view them as such. Is it okay to believe that AIDS was created to kill black people? Not unless you have real, verifiable evidence. Otherwise it's comparable to some of the thing Jerry Falwell said, from a certain perspective. The problem with that perspective, though, is that it fails to take into account any relevant history. Jerry Falwell has likely never been victimized as a result of his skin color, and Jerry Falwell's great great grandparents weren't slaves.

Like it or not, that changes the comparison considerably. The frightening thing, as DC pointed out, is that despite the comparison not even being fair to black people, it seems clear that some people can't even find them as being equivalent. The even nuttier part is that Ustwo is just as much of an atheist as I am (imagine Ustwo as a Christopher Hitchens type of atheist, or an atheist that's conservative), but he still hasn't, to my memory, mentioned Falwell and his hate-squad.

So I'm saying it: what Reverend Wright said was irresponsible. I'd also ask Obama about it, but he's already answered questions about it. Ad nauseum. When has Bush asked about Jerry "God is full of hate according to me" Falwell?

No, please review ... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=419

This was taken directly from their website, some of which was deleted just after Rev. Wright's swan song (available through archives ... dug it up myself). Yes they do allow white members ... yes they will take your money ... but it is exactly what they say it is, plus the temperament of their leader.

Believe what ever is convenient, it's your right.

It's not hypocrisy at all. The typical white person isn't oppressed. End of story. Typical white woman on the other hand....

and go figure, there's a feminist theology, and I like that one too.

You refuse to grasp, for whatever reason, that we are NOT coming from the same point of view. Not even close. I've noticed this tendency in many conservatives here - you just don't want to accept that folks like me are really, real people, lol.

Uh, nope, I don't get all up in arms when a black man screams, 'God Damn America.'

I don't get it - I'm more than aware that you guys are real, please let me be real. :lol:

You want to know something even more crazy? Get this, I wouldn't even be upset if Barack Obama himself screamed 'God Damn America!' But we both know that will never happen.

I assert that our views are widely divergent, and I have learned that it is terribly loathsome for me to discuss this with you folks here - nor do I have the inclination...at all - I am quite comfortable that I have ascertained a realistic understanding of the situation.

I came back to this thread only to give a little support to the 'larger picture' of Rev. Wright according to a white member of his church and that is all. Take it or leave it. I will not get involved in yet another ideological grudge match on the topic of race. It's too depressing.

Jerry was a bigot too, I didn't think this was the topic of the thread. We should start a thread on racial bigotry and propose solutions.

As long as we refuse to see the equivalence, we never move forward. There has to be jumping off point or we're stuck in this feedback loop. It's not a simple matter to make real, but the solution is that simple. We choose to make it complicated.

Catch you crazy kids later. bed time.

edit - sorry didn't address Obama answering the questions, that's not been my beef ... it seems the thread has become more about who we give a pass on racism and bigotry (or not) based on how we rationalize their motivation and experiences. My position ... none should be tolerated any longer. Plain and simple. I no longer accept excuses that enable bigotry for any reason.

One quick example: sentencing guidelines with regards to powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Crack cocaine tends to have much higher sentences and, lo and behold, it's the cheaper cocaine which is more often used by the poor.

There's nothing complicated about Bush's strong ties to Falwell not being explored or questioned. And they are relevant to this thread because of said equivalence. How about this? Hold Wright responsible for his words and hold his white equivalents even more responsible for being just as bigoted without ever being victims of bigotry.

Indeed. Otherwise, all you're doing is proving that Rev. Wright has a reason to be upset.

Please cite "black", "African American", "negro", etc. in any law or judgement used to sentence these people. Try again. If it is disproportionate, we can talk about a whole list of reasons ... black on black crime (wait, blacks don't sell drugs to other blacks ... it's the USofKKKA), possible racist individuals in a position of power (oops! ... wait ... that would be an individual abusing their power, not a law or policy), let's go on ... some are just stuck in this mindset of enabling and too proud of it.

Now that is a cop-out. Institutions are made up of individuals. Regardless of whether or not it's explicit or conscious, if the justice system is filled with so many racist individuals in a position of power, it is a de facto institutional problem.

And bringing up black on black crime as an excuse for racial disparities in the application of justice is no different than saying blacks are simply morally inferior to whites. Aside for that, I'm not sure how who seels the drugs has anything to do with the simple fact that crack cocaine has an unnecessarily more severe prison sentence than powdered cocaine. The result of this, regardless of who sold the cocaine, is that poor cocaine addicts receive sentences that are unnecessarily more severe than more wealthy cocaine addicts. Finally, since black Americans are disproportionately poor, black Americans are the most effected by this.

The fact that you don't understand that something can have a result which is unjust without explicitly intending to be so baffles me.

So what if any of us were victims of bigotry? Things are way better since the 80's ... but it's gonna happen again. How do you think Desmond Tutu would respond to your supposition? He grew up in arguably much worse conditions. What would Mahatma Ghandi have to say about all this hubbub? WWJD? ... kidding.

You kid, but I've already demonstrated that Jesus essentially did proclaim the equivalent of "God damn America" in his time (or, at least, he's said to have done so). Jesus wasn't a big friendly dude with glowing hair. He was a religious and political radical who preached what amounted to an overthrow of the status quo.

More importantly, how can you essentially claim that the overall black community is in a collective mindset and that it is only through their own failings as people that they are so disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to the average white American, and not recognize how incredibly bigoted that is?

Either blacks and whites are equal or they are not. And if you believe they are, you can't simultaneously claim that the black community's problems come from some sort of moral and psychological inferiority to more successful white people.

You can wish it that way, I'm only challenging your feelings about how you interpret cause and effect. The facts are there and there is no policy of racism ... it is illegal. The cop-out is hiding behind feelings and good intentions while perpetuating a culture of victimization. If you can prove it, prosecute. Go get em.

Being whiter than aluminum foil in the microwave, I've never really faced the type of racism that a black, latino, or even asian might face. I've only had a taste of what I'm told is called reverse racism. I had a shit boss when I worked for Sears back in school who decided that I was one and the same as all those people that treated him like crap when he was a black boy growing up in a rather bad part of town. But all I got from him was not being treated the same as the other employees because I sound like a news castor. I've never seen imagery of my ancestors being hung simply because of the color of their skin. I don't live side by side with people who have residual racism left over from when their parents and my parents were "separate but equal". As a liberal, it's a part of me to do everything in my power to empathize and sympathize with people who aren't like me, but I can't sit here and claim that I get what it means to be a victim of real bigotry.

Leaving my own experiences aside, though, isn't it clear that Reverend Wright, who has been victimized by racism throughout his life should be categorized differently than those who have not been victimized by racism?

I honestly don't know, at this point, if you're being sarcastic or if you're just ignorant. If it were that easy, many things would have been changed by now. The disproportionate effect of drug sentencing laws, for example, has been proven for quite some time. Legislators are rarely swayed by data demonstrating whether or not policies are actually effective though. Just ask anyone who is reasonably familiar with biofuel.

never said anything like that. I'm talking about guys like Wright (and Falwell) and how people will fall all over themselves to justify a persons bigotry because they had a rough time at some point or they claim to have some moral authority ... not "the black community" (which is a point of dispute among blacks). I was answering dc's specific questions he posed about blacks in general. BTW - Jesus is a white Dutchman, check out the paintings.:rolleyes:

I'm taller than my brother. I make less money than one of my sisters. I've worked for rich blacks. There is no one-to-one individual equality.

You're right, there's not. But that does has nothing to do with the fact that, overall, blacks in America are very disproportionately disadvantaged.

Just because you'd like to call it bigotry does not make it so.

More importantly...I'm going to take a lesson from mixedmedia and realize I'm wasting too much time here. I finally had a chance to look back on your previous post and couldn't help but notice that you were citing FrontPage. As much as the idealist in me would like to think otherwise, the pragmatist has to admit that there's just about no way a discussion with someone who thinks anything from FrontPage is worth referencing is going anywhere. They make Fox look like they actually are fair and balanced. Incidentally, one of my favorite college professors was also in the top 5 of a FrontPage poll regarding the most "dangerous" professors in America. We tried to vote him up higher so that he'd beat his good friend Noam Chomsky, and it was close, but alas Chomsky won.

The US is a signator to the UN Commitee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) under which it submits reports on government action to eliminate institutional racism.

You can read the latest official US report: here

The ACLU released a responsive independent shadow report highlighting the pervasive institutional, systemic and structural racism in America.

You can read the ACLU report: Racial & Ethnicity in America: Turning a Blind Eye to Injustice.

It sounds to me like you take the same approach as the Bush administration....as long as laws or institutional policies dont explicitly use terms like "black, African-American, etc", then there is no institutional racism in the US.

But I dont expect you will take a report from the ACLU very seriously or the UN CERD either for that matter.

****

I'm done here too.

Now that's putting me in my place and setting a dismisive tone! :thumbsup:

I said in a previous post that the solution would be difficult to implement, get buy in, but the answer is not complicated. There's too much power to loose in moving on. Like crabs in a bucket, when one tries to rise above and escape, the others pull them back down. And no, that was not directed at the "black community"... there are bigots and racists of all colors.

Again, this thread was about Wright and Obama. The black theme was (I guess) inevitable. I'm not talking about blacks ... I'm challenging the free pass folks are willing to give to bigotry for any reason. I'm fully aware of the causes and the struggles. But when do we stop, lay anger or hatred aside, proceed? No-one seems to want to address these questions. It doesn't feed the ideology.

No one is addressing your questions because they are based on a faulty premise - that Rev. Wright's statements were bigoted - or at least a premise which a large number of people in this thread disagree with.

We're not changing each other's minds; just let the thread die.

They are great reports. You and the ACLU get busy and prosecute, get them all, I'm all for it. But why get so personal and of course ... (trumpets please) invoke George Bush when frustrated in a challenging discussion?

Sleep tight zzzzzzzzz

uh ... that would be from the "front page" of Asia Times Online. So quick with the dismissive "credible sources" comebacks ... didn't bother to notice the link sourcing the article. I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Faulty, how so? Back it up if you can.

So then the issue is settled? I'm sorry, because the majority of posters agree with you, that's a win?

Then let it die ... It just takes jumping off, letting go, then moving forward ... much like moving beyond racism and bigotry.

I'll live up to my own example.

Didn't say it's a "win," just a waste of time.Indeed, and now that my podcast is finished, I'll do just that.

All you fellas, be sure to mosey on over to the sexuality forum and let us know how you feel about your penis...if you haven't already. :)

See, guys, there's no point. ottopilot isn't listening. His view of the world is RIGHT, TRUE and ABSOLUTE--Wright IS racist, and no matter what anyone says, it's all going to be dismissed entirely. Why? Because Wright IS racist. Screw reasoning and evidence. Never mind that it's nauseatingly circular reasoning. Wright IS racist. He IS. IS IS IS. That's the winning counter-argument to everything, and then all his rhetoric flows naturally from that TRUE, RIGHT, ABSOLUTE starting-point.

This is a fucking joke. And it's not even personal or specific to you. THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLITICS IN AMERICA, friends. We're so desperate to score points on each other we QUIT THINKING.

It's really simple: Wright has reverse racist leanings, which is different than racism.

Isn't thirteen pages of this enough?
Will I get my head bit off if I believe and request this thread should be locked?

I don't think he has reverse racist leanings, either.

Actually, I've been thinking about it this morning...

The AIDS to kill off all black people thing is reverse racism. I'm not saying I blame him. As I understand it, Wright has been victimized by racism for many, many years.

I don't see how it is reverse racism. He is not saying it because the people who might have done such a thing were white. If I thought it were directed at my race, I might be personally offended, but it is not. It is directed at what he, and many others, believe is a system of oppression. Do you feel targeted as a white person when he says that?