Everyone's talking about Obama, when McCain's allied with John Hagie

[U2democrat]

Amen, brother!

[martha]

Nicely and accurately put, Irvine.

[yolland]

When I listen to people (particularly people who were or are considering voting for the Democrat in November) expressing revulsion at Wright's views, and deep discomfort with Obama's longtime pastor/congregant relationship to him, I'm not really hearing much in the way of fear that Obama might reflexively adopt Wright's policy preferences--whatever those might be--as his own. I don't think that's really what's bothering them. I think it's more the idea that (so they imagine) Obama must surely have heard comments exactly like the ones circulating on TV many times from the pew, yet wasn't bothered enough by them to leave Wright's church. I really do think there's a kind of cultural disconnect going on there; I already went into that in deep's thread, and won't repeat it here. But to be fair to Dread and others, I can understand where that discomfort comes from. No one wants to feel presumed guilty until proven innocent (an observation shot through with ironies, yes). As a white person, that is not how I feel about Wright's (selected) remarks...but, I can understand that for most this isn't really what you'd want your President to consider an uplifting way to spend a Sunday morning, either. Should Obama, the aspiring future President of the United States, move on altogether from that particular church for the foreseeable future...I'm inclined to agree that yes, he should. But I still take issue with the ease and intense indignation with which some say, Why didn't he do so years ago.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Irvine511




this has been the line of thought tossed back whenever comparisons are made between Hagee and Wright, and while i do understand on one level -- you're right, Obama has a far closer relationship to Wright than McCain does to Hagee -- the lack of comparisons ends there.

there is much to compare between the Republican party's association and (if such white evangelical protestant pastors are to believed) governance with such white evangelical protestant pastors such as Hagee (or Falwell, or Robertson, or Dobson). one thing all these men have in common is that they all believe that the 9-11 attacks were *deserved*. that's where i split with these men, and that's where i think most Americans (and a good many non-Americans) would agree.

no one who went to work that morning *deserved* to die. no one *deserves* to have thousands of their citizens slaughtered because a small group of fanatics dislikes said country's foreign policy. i've consistently resisted and argued against knee-jerk anti-americanism in here, and i would take anyone to task who sought to assign blame on anyone other than the 16 hijackers and their financiers.

however, that's quite different from examining the *what* and the *why* some people are driven to kill. we can go on at length about a poisonous vision of religion, where this world doesn't matter and only the next one does, but we can't help but notice that the targets that were chosen were very specific, which has to lead us to believe that this wasn't an indiscriminate Columbine-style massacre. i think most adults can have a conversation about that without it resorting into blame.

what Wright didn't do, and what Robertson, Falwell, and, yes, Hagee, all don't do, is stop there. they continue to assign blame onto the shoulders of the American people and the government for 9-11. and this is a trend that continued with Katrina -- Hagee still believes that the hurricane was god's way of punishing the city, with it's liberal ways with alcohol, sex, and, shock, willingness to have a gay pride parade. heck, James Inhofe, a Republican Senator, blamed 9-11 on the US somehow wavering in it's support to Israel.

these men are just assuredly "America-haters," aren't they? or do they get a pass because they're white? should we not protect our children from their America-hating diatribes? they think that 3,000 people died in New York because God is punishing America for our wicked, sinful ways.

so what does this have to do with McCain? no, there's no close association between the man McCain and these people, but there is between the party which he now represents and these people, and the Republican Party has taken it one step further. the foreign policy championed by Bush, Cheney, and, yes, JOHN MCCAIN, is perfectly in line with the Rapture-obsessed America-must-destroy-Islam worldview.

contrast this with the quite obvious differences that Obama makes obvious every day between himself and his pastor -- Obama is calm, cool, collected, thoughtful, non-fiery -- and also the differences he's been forced to enumerate in speeches and in debates moderated by Tim Russert. why does Obama have to repudiate Farrakkhan, and disassociate himself with Harry Belefonte? i'll give you a hint -- it's for the same reason that Russert asked Colin Powell about Harry Belefonte.

and the whites get a pass. why wasn't Fallwell described as an America-hater by Fox News? surely, if there's anything that upsets Fox more than Christian-bashing it's America-bashing? or, because he's white, and a Republican, and has obviously gotten fat on fried chicken and pecan pie, it's assumed that all of his criticisms are meant with love, whereas Wright's criticisms are meant to tear down and destroy, that Wright is speaking for some sort of mysterious fifth column of black radicals who are coming to get you?

what's going on here is that there's a HUGE double standard. angry white ministers are given a pass because they are deemed to be worthy of respect -- no matter how hateful or deranged -- and then we get this universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black minister.

no, there's no racism to get mad about, now is there?

and, at the end of the day, while Obama might have had a close relationship with Wright, he doesn't seem to be a political disciple of Wright. Wright is a nobody. Wright has no political influence beyond a few neighborhoods in Chicago. compare this with Hagee, with Robertson, with Fallwell, with Dobson who apparently chooses SCOTUS nominees. despite a lack of 20 years of close communication, McCain and his party are soldiers to their deranged, Rapture-obsessed policies in a way that the cool and calm Obama is not a soldier for Wright.

it's maddening.

Thanks Irvine - Excellent Post.

[U2isthebest]

That was brilliant Irvine. I could not agree more completely.

[diamond]

At least Mitt stayed above the fray, no matter how much people attacked his belief system.

It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

dbs

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

Care to explain?

[Utoo]

Originally posted by deep



"cab catching"
why introduce that into the serious issue of race problems?

Seriously? It has everything to do with race. It's the same way I was never followed around in a convenience store unless I went in with my black friend. Or how in high school I could walk through the halls and chat with the principal, but my friend would consistently be asked for a hall pass.

The "serious issue of race" doesn't only have to do with outright hatred or abuse. In fact, it's the little things that, when piled on together throughout one's life, makes the effects of race even larger.

Never being able to catch a cab in DC because you're black (despite the fact that half of DC is black..) has as much to do with racism as an outright hate crime.

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond

It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

Where has anyone tried to regulate what anyone else has said here in this thread?

[diamond]

It's a mindset Martha.

Preachers may say what they want to say- but by trying to suppress their right to speak you only invigorate them.

Hence the title of this thread.

It would be best to simply turn a way from them and let others follow your example.

dbs

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond

Preachers may say what they want to say- but by trying to suppress their right to speak you only invigorate them.

But where as anyone here tried to suppress the preachers?

[diamond]

Originally posted by martha


But where as anyone here tried to suppress the preachers?

Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

dbs

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond


Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

now you're getting all Confucius on us.

[diamond]

you have no idea of my action, boobie.

[martha]

Originally posted by diamond


Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

dbs

What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

Or are these guys getting a pass from you because of the Reverend thing?

[anitram]

Originally posted by martha


What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

We'd be better off spending our valuable time discusing demonic possessions.

[melon]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
Thanks Irvine - Excellent Post.

Yes. He said it all before I could.

[melon]

Originally posted by martha
What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

Or are these guys getting a pass from you because of the Reverend thing?

The current FUD over the last few years has been to paint "conservative Christians" as an "oppressed minority" on par with Jews and blacks. That is, those who question them are, thus, "denying them their rights." Interestingly, most of those arguments are just as poorly constructed as the rest of their worldviews, as we can see here.

What conservative Christians have completely forgotten is that "freedom of speech" does not mean a "freedom to be unopposed" or "freedom from rebuttal." Instead, it is just as much our right to use free speech to oppose them just as it is their free speech right to say whatever it is they want.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by melon


Yes. He said it all before I could.

:O)

I did not say I agreed with it.....

It was at least an intelligent response - and it made me think - which is good.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Utoo



Seriously? It has everything to do with race. It's the same way I was never followed around in a convenience store unless I went in with my black friend. Or how in high school I could walk through the halls and chat with the principal, but my friend would consistently be asked for a hall pass.

The "serious issue of race" doesn't only have to do with outright hatred or abuse. In fact, it's the little things that, when piled on together throughout one's life, makes the effects of race even larger.

Never being able to catch a cab in DC because you're black (despite the fact that half of DC is black..) has as much to do with racism as an outright hate crime.

Not for an election it doesn't, putting race front and centre seems to be an issue that most people want nothing to do with, and you need most people to win an election.