Controversial minister off Obama's campaign [Archive]

Regis Philbin

Mar 14th, 2008, 08:52 PM

Can the Dems possibly keep shooting themselves...er, sorry, Dems don't own guns...can they possibly keep sticking their feet in their mouths like this?

We have a candidate---Juan McCain---that is incapable of taking advantage of this. *sigh* :bluesad: :greyno:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

Controversial minister off Obama's campaign

Story Highlights

Barack Obama's former pastor has said 9/11 attacks were brought on by America

Obama distances himself from comments, calls them "appalling"

Minister also has said Hillary Clinton has easier time because she is white

Obama camp says minister no longer part of campaign

From Alex Mooney
CNN

Editor's Note: The following report contains objectionable language.

(CNN) -- A Chicago minister who delivered a fiery sermon about Sen. Hillary Clinton having an advantage over Sen. Barack Obama in the presidential race because she is white is no longer a part of the Obama campaign.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee, campaign sources told CNN.

In another sermon, Wright had said America had brought the September 11 attacks upon itself.

LesterX

Mar 14th, 2008, 08:57 PM

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 14th, 2008, 09:01 PM

And if Obama had kept this man on his campaign, Rush/Regis would be screaming bloody murder. Can't please these loonies.

pinky

Mar 15th, 2008, 07:18 AM

What I find interesting is that Regis thinks it's a bad thing for the Democrats to have people who actually think for themselves, instead of just parroting the lines that are fed to them.

Of course, he has no personal experience with that, so he can't possibly know how liberating it is.

Regis Philbin

Mar 17th, 2008, 06:01 PM

Come on, Barry. You've been going to this church for 20 years and you never heard your Pastor's racist rants??? Give me a break! :rolleyes:

Now we know why Barry refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. :]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VEE9OO0&show_article=1

Obama Decries Racial Rhetoric

Mar 16 05:11 AM US/Eastern

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

PLAINFIELD, Ind. (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday decried "the forces of division" over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest.

"We have to come together," he told a town-hall meeting at a high school.

He cited videos of inflammatory sermons given by his pastor that are now being used as political ammunition against him—remarks that Obama has denounced.

"If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked," Obama said.

Obama suggested that more and more is being made of racial divisions as his contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton heats up.

"I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I'm not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there's been this shift," Obama said.

"It reminds me: We've got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. We've got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. ... This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things."

The Illinois senator's comments came a day after he denounced statements in videos appearing on television and on the Internet of sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Chicago church Obama joined nearly 20 years ago.

Richard Tafoya

Mar 17th, 2008, 06:13 PM

I see you're parroting your racist hero with the Juan McCain crap again, Regis. If your candidate is so terrible, it doesn't say much for your main man Mitt that he wasn't able to beat him, does it?
Let's not forget that that Romney family themselves fled to Mexico as illegals to evade prosecution for polygamy and Multiple-choice Mitt's father was born in Chihuahua. The family then fled back into the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution, never formally repatriating themselves as Americans, just crossing the border like any other Mexican of the time.

LesterX

Mar 17th, 2008, 06:50 PM

Let's not forget that that Romney family themselves fled to Mexico as illegals to evade prosecution for polygamy and Multiple-choice Mitt's father was born in Chihuahua. The family then fled back into the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution, never formally repatriating themselves as Americans, just crossing the border like any other Mexican of the time.

I didn't know that. How does one translate a quintessential white boy name like Mitt into Spanish? Or his real first name of Willard, for that matter.

pinky

Mar 18th, 2008, 03:44 PM

I didn't know that. How does one translate of a quintessential white boy name like Mitt into Spanish? Or his real first name of Willard, for that matter.
El cobarde.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 18th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Oh my... lmao!

Incident

Mar 19th, 2008, 12:00 PM

And if Obama had kept this man on his campaign, Rush/Regis would be screaming bloody murder. Can't please these loonies.

Obama should never have gone to this racist/seperatist church. He is a long-time member of a racist/seperatist church by choice therefore Obama is a racist.

Annoyedlistner

Mar 19th, 2008, 12:55 PM

Obama should never have gone to this racist/seperatist church. He is a long-time member of a racist/seperatist church by choice therefore Obama is a racist.

Did you even take a chance to listen to what Obama had to say yesterday?

~Aquarian86~

Mar 19th, 2008, 08:56 PM

Obama should never have gone to this racist/seperatist church. He is a long-time member of a racist/seperatist church by choice therefore Obama is a racist.

Gee, I didn't know Obama was part of Nation of Islam. Last time I checked I saw whites inside the church also.

Anyway, I take his word that Wright didn't speak like this on a weekly basis. I'm sure he wasn't shouting his head off when he married Barack and his wife, or when he baptized his children. Politics shouldn't be in church anyway, and sometimes when preachers get political they say controversial stuff. Wright isn't the first, he will not be the last. If we're going to vote against someone based on guilt by association, they all should drop out. Based on my research, you don't wanna know the company the Clintons kept or are probably still keeping. McCain claims to not take lobbyist money but has lobbyist friends, some who possibly gave money to him. Nobody's perfect and I don't expect them to. I think we need to stop holding candidates to a divine standard, unless we find out they're murderers or rapists, etc.

Paulie

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:33 PM

Obama should never have gone to this racist/seperatist church. He is a long-time member of a racist/seperatist church by choice therefore Obama is a racist.

Hmmm...interesting.

Well, since you belong to a church that promotes discrimination, fear and hatred of homosexuals, by your very definition, you are a homophobe.

Color me shocked.

Paulie

Incident

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:52 PM

Did you even take a chance to listen to what Obama had to say yesterday?

Yes I listened to the whole thing, live, and was extremely disappointed in Obama. A campaign that had been above race, has now devolved into the same old demogogic (albiet couched in a finely delivered speech) that we must treat blacks and whites differently.

But my point has nothing to do with his speech or even Pastor Wright's Sermons it is the mission statement of the church.http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

This is the new one just put up this week and unbelievably less racist than the old one.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Now just substitute the words white, Aryan , communist and Bolsheviks and this could be the statement coming from Hitler and his Nazi party.

Here is the statement before it was updated just recently.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
Commitment to God Commitment to the Black Community Commitment to the Black Family Dedication to the Pursuit of Education Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence Adherence to the Black Work Ethic Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Can you even imagine for a minute John McCain belonging to a church for twenty years that proclaimed it followed a white value system and called on the members to support White institutions and pledge allegiance to all White Leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System?
Not even defensible Barak obviously does not even have the judgement to be a school board member much less President of the USA.

Incident

Mar 19th, 2008, 09:56 PM

Hmmm...interesting.

Well, since you belong to a church that promotes discrimination, fear and hatred of homosexuals, by your very definition, you are a homophobe.

Color me shocked.

Paulie

That is a lie, Paulie, show me in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church where it says that catholics should fear and hate homosexuals?

The reason you lie is because you are incapable of defending Obama's segragationalist Church.

Paulie

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:02 PM

That is a lie, Paulie, show me in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church where it says that catholics should fear and hate homosexuals?

The reason you lie is because you are incapable of defending Obama's segragationalist Church.

Actually, I haven't read his speech yet, so I'm not going to comment on it until/if I have the time to do so.

However, the hatred spewed by the leadership of the universally repulsive "church" to which you belong is well known to me, as I was raised in that "faith".

Hey, as soon as the chief protector of child molestors (aka the pope) and all the others who supported and condoned child molestation by priests admit their crimes and surrender to the appropriate authorities, maybe, just maybe, I'll begin to consider having a modicum of respect for that organization. Until then, not a freakin' chance.

Paulie

Richard Tafoya

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:03 PM

NPR did a very interesting interview today with the new pastor of Trinity United Church. Worth a listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88607509

Incident

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:26 PM

Actually, I haven't read his speech yet, so I'm not going to comment on it until/if I have the time to do so.

However, the hatred spewed by the leadership of the universally repulsive "church" to which you belong is well known to me, as I was raised in that "faith".

Hey, as soon as the chief protector of child molestors (aka the pope) and all the others who supported and condoned child molestation by priests admit their crimes and surrender to the appropriate authorities, maybe, just maybe, I'll begin to consider having a modicum of respect for that organization. Until then, not a freakin' chance.

Paulie

Oh, please, find one sermon by a Catholic priest that supports and condones child molestation?

Find the statement by the Pope that condones and supports child molestation?

Back up your claims or retract them as lies. You and Pastor Wright seem to be two peas in a pod.

Incident

Mar 19th, 2008, 10:30 PM

NPR did a very interesting interview today with the new pastor of Trinity United Church. Worth a listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88607509

No suprise to me that many blacks believe they do not have to hold themselves to the same standard they hold whites to.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 20th, 2008, 06:09 AM

No suprise to me that many blacks believe they do not have to hold themselves to the same standard they hold whites to.

Is it a surpirse to you that blacks are still seen as subpar to whites among a great many people in this country? That racism, prejudice and hatred still exist? That salary inequities still exist? That educational inequities still exist? That there still exists anger and frustration in black communities regarding these inequities, this prejudice? Your comments sound to me to represent exactly what many in the black communities experience and have experienced for generations: the angry, oppressive white man.

If these black churches do not strongly advocate support of their own, who will? There is a huge difference between a black church that urges its members to support black businesses and an Aryan organization that promotes wiping black people off the face of the earth.

Paulie

Mar 20th, 2008, 11:48 AM

I apologize for hijacking the thread, but I must get this off my chest.

BTW, for reference purposes, URC stands for Universally Repulsive Church, aka the catholic church.

Child Molestation
Not having access to every lecture, sermon, public statement, etc., that has been put forth by the URC in regards to child molestation, I'll concede the point that they've likely never formally stated that they condone and/or support child molestation. However, their actions over the years clearly showed they didn't think it was that big of a deal.

Priests were routinely transferred to other parishes despite numerous complaints. And what happened at the new parishes? More molestation. Did this force the leaders of the URC to take any substantive action against the abusers? Of course not; they just moved them to yet another parish.

It was obvious that they cared more about their public profile than about the physical and emotional well-being of the victims of these most-horrid of crimes.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the powers-that-be of the URC, both within the local archidioceses and at world headquarters in Vatican City, were well aware of what was going on. They probably figured that as long as they could cower the victims into thinking it was their own fault, then it would remain the URC's dirty little secret.

It is my firm belief that this went all the way to the top, to the guy sitting on the throne of saint Peter, be it Paul #6, JP #1 and #2, and of course, #2's consigliere, the new man at the top, Nasty Rasty...I meant Benny #16. They cared not for the most innocent, which I thought was part of their charge. Instead, they were in full CYA mode, protecting their most-corrupt political organization.

BTW, what happened to the chief conspirator in the Boston cover-up, Bernie "We're Way Above the" Law?? Oh yeah, after resigning, he gets a promotion and is transferred to the Vatican. Nice to see they took these crimes seriously.

Homosexuality
Last I checked, and as was reinforced during that dark period of my life when I was a member of the URC, homosexuality is a sin, straight out of the Old Testament (speaking of which, if members of the URC aren't supposed to take the OT as the exact, true word of that alledged supreme being, how come they conveniently use the statements on this topic as justification for their policies and actions regarding homosexuality? Ahh, hypocrisy, thy name is the URC).

OK, so homosexuality is a sin.

Those who live a homosexual lifestyle are sinners.

Sinners must repent for their sins through confession (quite possibly heard by a child molester, but again, we'll overlook the hypocrisy here).

If you don't repent, and you believe the fairy tales of the URC, your "eternal soul" is damned and you spent the rest of days in a warm place down south (and I don't mean the Carribean).

If this isn't a living, breathing example of a culture that preaches hatred towards and fear of homosexuality, then I don't know what would be.

And in conclusion...
If you're a priest or other person of stature within the URC, and you molest children or fail to take action to prevent such abuse, you simply have to confess to another member of the URC, ask for forgiveness, say a few prayers, and your "eternal soul" will be saved.

However, if you're a homosexual adult involved in same-sex relationships with other willing, consenting adults, and you don't ask for forgiveness or attempt to repent for your "sins", your "eternal soul" is damned.

What a wonderful organization.

Paulie

Incident

Mar 20th, 2008, 02:03 PM

... Your comments sound to me to represent exactly what many in the black communities experience and have experienced for generations: the angry, oppressive white man.

.....

What? All I have ever advocated is a color blind society how in anyway is that oppressive? Because I refuse to hold blacks to a different standard than I hold myself or white people?

Incident

Mar 20th, 2008, 02:08 PM

..
If these black churches do not strongly advocate support of their own, who will? There is a huge difference between a black church that urges its members to support black businesses and an Aryan organization that promotes wiping black people off the face of the earth.

Which is why you must always condemn and not tolerate racism at any level not make excuses for it, before that racism becomes acceptable. It seems that many on the left have accepted some forms of racism.

pinky

Mar 20th, 2008, 03:23 PM

No suprise to me that many blacks believe they do not have to hold themselves to the same standard they hold whites to.
Well, that's a pretty racist statement!

Incident

Mar 20th, 2008, 03:32 PM

Well, that's a pretty racist statement!

Not at all. I was not stereotyping , as Obama did today about white people. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020088.php I just said that there are Blacks who do not hold themselves to the same standard as they hold others of different races to.

pinky

Mar 20th, 2008, 03:39 PM

Perhaps you should try to take the log out of your own eye before you work on the speck in another's.

Incident

Mar 20th, 2008, 03:46 PM

Perhaps you should try to take the log out of your own eye before you work on the speck in another's.

If you truely believe that, pinky, then since you are not yet a perfect person you should not be commenting on anything else until you achieve that perfection, eh? Or again is that just a standard you hold others to and not yourself?

pinky

Mar 20th, 2008, 03:58 PM

I don't believe I'm perfect. That's why I'm willing to be persuaded about flaws in my logic.

And that, my friend, seems to be a bit different than you.

~Aquarian86~

Mar 20th, 2008, 09:55 PM

Yes I listened to the whole thing, live, and was extremely disappointed in Obama. A campaign that had been above race, has now devolved into the same old demogogic (albiet couched in a finely delivered speech) that we must treat blacks and whites differently.

But my point has nothing to do with his speech or even Pastor Wright's Sermons it is the mission statement of the church.http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

This is the new one just put up this week and unbelievably less racist than the old one.

Now just substitute the words white, Aryan , communist and Bolsheviks and this could be the statement coming from Hitler and his Nazi party.

Here is the statement before it was updated just recently.

Can you even imagine for a minute John McCain belonging to a church for twenty years that proclaimed it followed a white value system and called on the members to support White institutions and pledge allegiance to all White Leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System?
Not even defensible Barak obviously does not even have the judgement to be a school board member much less President of the USA.

So believing in black community issues and keeping black families together from a church in a black community is racist? Last time I checked I never heard of this church or any other minority churches torching houses and leaving burning crosses on the lawn. This church I think existed at least in 1971, post Civil Rights Era. I think the term unashamedly black comes from, if you take the ignorant glasses off, the history of blacks in America. From most blacks not having a choice to come here but were forced. They were ridiculed and treated like animals, and were inferior. Some even had self hatred for being of color, to the point of "assimilation". Where some permed their hair, reason I mention that is it's totally opposite from their natural texture unless they were born with hair like that, and some even bleaching their skin, or having nose jobs. But that term could come from not being ashamed of their heritage, they're not trying to say they're superior. Dealing with issues in the black community's very important based on families breaking up almost every day, mainly from financial situations. Now blacks have an opportunity now, but the majority of American history up until the mid 20th century, unless you were blessed with music, athletic or acting talent, you were not financially set. But if you think they turn whites away at the door, think again. You could walk in that church if you want. I hear they do have white members.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 21st, 2008, 06:37 AM

Which is why you must always condemn and not tolerate racism at any level not make excuses for it, before that racism becomes acceptable. It seems that many on the left have accepted some forms of racism.

I don't believe that the black community or any community of peoples who are oppressed coming together in support of each other is racist. And when that community speaks out against that oppression, and even if that speech sounds harsh at times, then too bad if it offends some people.

Would it be wonderful if everyone could all live together in peace and harmony without regard to skin color or ethnicity or religion? Absolutely. I still believe in Dr. King's Dream. But, I'm not a starry-eyed child of the 60s anymore. I recognize, as does Sen. Obama, if you listen to his speech, that there is anger and resentment on all sides. Instead of name-calling and pointing fingers, we all need to recognize there is still a problem with race in this country that we all need to deal with head-on. Neither platitudes nor outrage will solve it.

Incident

Mar 21st, 2008, 08:35 AM

I don't believe that the black community or any community of peoples who are oppressed coming together in support of each other is racist. And when that community speaks out against that oppression, and even if that speech sounds harsh at times, then too bad if it offends some people.

Would it be wonderful if everyone could all live together in peace and harmony without regard to skin color or ethnicity or religion? Absolutely. I still believe in Dr. King's Dream. But, I'm not a starry-eyed child of the 60s anymore. I recognize, as does Sen. Obama, if you listen to his speech, that there is anger and resentment on all sides. Instead of name-calling and pointing fingers, we all need to recognize there is still a problem with race in this country that we all need to deal with head-on. Neither platitudes nor outrage will solve it.

And the way you deal with it is by condemning all racism and stop making excuses for it. The Double Standard that you seem to, and many others have is why we still have a problem with race. Knock it off.

Incident

Mar 21st, 2008, 08:43 AM

So believing in black community issues and keeping black families together from a church in a black community is racist? .

Yes it is racist. It perpetuates racism. It seperates you from the rest of the community. It perpetuates predjudice.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 21st, 2008, 01:11 PM

This is what perpetuates racism: unequal pay, unequal educational opportunity, unequal housing, unequal lending practices, unequal job opportunities.

Fix that.

Incident

Mar 21st, 2008, 09:25 PM

This is what perpetuates racism: unequal pay, unequal educational opportunity, unequal housing, unequal lending practices, unequal job opportunities.

Fix that.

Easy, stop making excuses for failure!!

It is the apologists who hold Blacks to a lower standard by excusing and enabling attitudes, which if held by a white person would be condemed, that perpetuate the problems in Black America. The social policies enacted by these apologists have also greatly contributed to the failure of many in the Black Community by feeding the belief of entitlement.

You are correct in saying that Blacks have unequal educational opportunities. There opportunity is greater because of Affirmative action programs in university admissions, eg.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 22nd, 2008, 05:20 AM

Incident

Mar 22nd, 2008, 09:47 AM

I'm not limiting my remarks to blacks. Many of those statements apply to LGBT folks as well. Do you believe that Gay Pride Days are prejudiced affairs? Are gay churches? When gays support gay business is that somehow biased?

Gay Pride Parade vs KKK Rally. Both are held for a exclusive groups of people. The difference? Intent and purpose. Just as all gay people don't hate straight people, all black people don't hate white people; but make no mistake, all KKK members do hate blacks.

What's your point? That anybody that would take pride in being White as opposed to just being human is like the KKK? Is it possible to express White Pride without being a racist? I think not. For that reason if you express Black Pride that also makes you a racist. All I'm saying is that you are not helping blacks by holding them to a double standard, you are instead advocating divisivness.

pinky

Mar 22nd, 2008, 10:25 AM

Obviously, you missed her point.

I can take pride in my Irish and German heritage without being a racist. Blacks can take pride in their African heritage without being racist. There's nothing wrong with that.

Roget's Thesaurus has the following for its entry on the word pride:

Definition: self-esteem
Synonyms: amour propre, delight, dignity, ego, ego trip, egoism, egotism, face, gratification, happiness, honor, joy, pleasure, pridefulness, repletion, satisfaction, self-admiration, self-confidence, self-glorification, self-love, self-regard, self-respect, self-satisfaction, self-sufficiency, self-trust, self-worth, sufficiency, vainglory
Antonyms: shame
Now, I'll acknowledge that some of those synonyms have a negative connotation, but many are good, worthy attributes.

However, its one antonym is something that no one, black, white, or green, should be made to feel about themselves.

You've said that pride in one's race is a bad thing. Are you willing to say that you're ashamed of being white? Bcause if you're not proud, that's what you are. By definition.

Richard Tafoya

Mar 22nd, 2008, 12:01 PM

Media Bistro:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/wallace_to_ff_hosts_two_hours_of_obama_bashing_is_enough_804 47.asp

Now that's fair...and balanced. Chris Wallace turned his Friday Fox & Friends segment, where he normally teases what's coming up on Fox News Sunday, into a smackdown of the show's hosts. He prefaced the six minute exchange by saying "I love you guys, but..."

Wallace, who said he'd been watching since 6am, thought "Two hours of Obama bashing is enough. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Dnhx1_KQM)" He took issue with the characterization that hosts, Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade and Gretchen Carlson were giving to Sen. Barack Obama's "typical white person" comments.

Toward the end of the courteous but pointed back and forth, Doocy said, "So on your Sunday show, your just gonna tell people never to watch Fox & Friends again?" Wallace: "No, I love you guys, but you know...look, I think that's one of the things that's great about Fox News is that we don't all follow talking points. And I just was unhappy with what you were doing today."

Full Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Dnhx1_KQM

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 22nd, 2008, 09:43 PM

What's your point? That anybody that would take pride in being White as opposed to just being human is like the KKK? Is it possible to express White Pride without being a racist? I think not. For that reason if you express Black Pride that also makes you a racist. All I'm saying is that you are not helping blacks by holding them to a double standard, you are instead advocating divisivness.

You are either purposely dense, or you simply lack the intellect to grasp the logic. Whichever the case may be, enjoy.

Incident

Mar 22nd, 2008, 09:59 PM

Obviously, you missed her point.

I can take pride in my Irish and German heritage without being a racist. Blacks can take pride in their African heritage without being racist. There's nothing wrong with that.

Roget's Thesaurus has the following for its entry on the word pride:

Now, I'll acknowledge that some of those synonyms have a negative connotation, but many are good, worthy attributes.

However, its one antonym is something that no one, black, white, or green, should be made to feel about themselves.

You've said that pride in one's race is a bad thing. Are you willing to say that you're ashamed of being white? Bcause if you're not proud, that's what you are. By definition.

OK, go into you job wearing a "white pride" button. Announce in church next time you go that you want the church to develop a white value system call on the other members to support white institutions and pledge allegiance to all White Leadership that espouse the white value system.

Of course you wouldn't do something so stupid and racist but yet you think its fine and dandy for Blacks to do so. Why the double standard?

BTW -- I don't take pride in or feel ashamed of my race, I don't care at all about my race. Race is just a way of dividing people. Get over it. I consider myself a person.

SparkleHugs

Mar 22nd, 2008, 11:13 PM

I'll be honest, I haven't read most of what has been said about this right now. But I saw the man speak and i was really offended by it. Yes, African Americans have dealt with oppression and that is crappy. they suffer more than most other races in this country and that is horrific. However, the way he spoke made it out like it was the goal of every white person to keep the black people down. The way he spoke, to me, promoted hatred and created more racial division than anything else.

Richard Tafoya

Mar 22nd, 2008, 11:51 PM

It's a good thing he's no longer the pastor and that Obama clarified his disagreements with those statements.

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 12:21 AM

It's a good thing he's no longer the pastor and that Obama clarified his disagreements with those statements.

Even if he did clarify his statements (which I believe he failed at) , he still belongs to a church that is openly seperatist and racist.

From the church's own website.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

If John McCain belonged to a Church for two decades that as part of its mission stated that We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain "true to our native land," ............ it is likely that you would be screaming your head off that McCain is a racist. Why the Double Standard?

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 12:25 AM

~Aquarian86~

Mar 23rd, 2008, 01:28 AM

Even if he did clarify his statements (which I believe he failed at) , he still belongs to a church that is openly seperatist and racist.

From the church's own website.

If John McCain belonged to a Church for two decades that as part of its mission stated that it is likely that you would be screaming your head off that McCain is a racist. Why the Double Standard?

Ugh, there's no reasoning with ignorance. I typed out all that history, and you either didn't read it all, or picked out what you can respond to because you know the rest of it's true. Honestly, the reason there are black churches in black communities goes way back. As far as I know it was African Americans that wanted to integrate and racist, not all, but racist whites didn't want that. What happens when a large group of blacks migrate to a community that's considered white by demographics? At least back then they would start moving to another community. I think that's how Harlem was formed. If they can't live together, I doubt that the races would go to church together, duh. And with the black communities back then being mainly poor, I'm sure the churches would start talking about issues relating to their community and keeping families together, a poor family is highly likely to split apart.

Some people who don't get that will think it's racist. If you see yourself as a person only that's great, but the reality is especially with a young country like America and our history, some people are still going to be racist. We have a stereotype about every group in this country and it's sad.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 23rd, 2008, 06:23 AM

Roget's Thesaurus has the following for its entry on the word pride:

Yes, you make great points, pinky. I think that this issue goes beyond that, though.

Paul talked about "apologists" and I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Let's look at these two groups for a moment, blacks and LGBT folks. Both have been oppressed in this country. Both have not had equal rights. Blacks now have equal rights under the law, LGBTs still do not. The equal rights struggle for blacks is decades, even generations old, the LGBT movement is relatively new.

Even though blacks do have rights, there is still inequality and, seems to me a real sense of impatience in America on both sides. Where blacks still see inequality and a sense of opression and, it comes out in sermons like the one we heard from Rev. Wright, some white America seems to have an attitude of "Oh, get over it. You have equal rights, now." Anyone who may recognize black inequities and the anger and frustration it induces in some in that community are labeled "apologists" by people like Paul.

On the other hand, there is a groundswell of support for LGBT rights in this country, much like the support shown for black civil rights movement during the 60s and 70s. But, what will happen in 40 years after LGBTs have gained certain rights, but still face discrimination? Will people like Paul be just as intolerant and impatient? I bet they will.

It's one thing to grant rights to a group of people, it's something else to accept that group without prejudice and discrimination. As time passes and little changes, why are folks surprised when a group of Americans who are still treated like second-class citizens get angry about it?

To me, that was Obama's message, and he showed courage in saying it. Instead of spouting platitudes about race not being an issue, he told the truth: race, prejudice, bias, stereotyping... all are still issues in this country. There are still people angry about their treatment. There are still people resentful of people who are different than they are. Let's stop tip-toeing around it, put it on the table and find ways to heal it.

pinky

Mar 23rd, 2008, 10:38 AM

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:16 AM

Nuance doesn't fit well with black and white thinking, if you'll excuse the pun. ;)

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 10:09 PM

Obviously, you're right in all of that. I just didn't want to give Paul too much to absorb at one time. ;)

Accordint to Paul's logic, I suppose that I ought to have disavowed my father by the time I was 18, just because he was (to my great disappointment) a racist. Forget all the good things he did for his family, ignore the other lessons he taught us, and rebuke everything about him, just because he held bigoted views about African- and Asian-Americans, Italians, Poles, Jews, and just about every ethnic group besides the Germans? Sorry, he was more to me than just racism, and I still love and miss him, 24 years after his death.

My guess is that Obama has a personal relationship with Wright that surpasses his church affiliation, and enables him to distance himself from some of Wright's views, just as I did from my father's, while maintaining his ties in other areas.

Nuance, unfortunately, isn't Paul's strong suit, and he obviously misses that point.

You had no choice in who your father was? Obama made a free choice as an adult to join an anti-semetic racist church and remain there for 20 years and counting and bring his kids up in a racist and anti-semetic environment. A church that preaches Black Liberation Theology. Part of which says --

What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points (http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm)" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120568855824539755.html#WRIGHT), Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120585801828545495.html?mod=fpa_mostpop

If Obama really wants to be a uniter then he needs to denounce all Black churces that subscribe to this and similar beliefs

pinky

Mar 23rd, 2008, 10:23 PM

Funny, I don't see anything in there about the destruction of the white race, just the oppressors.

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 10:39 PM

Funny, I don't see anything in there about the destruction of the white race, just the oppressors.

Read it again.

If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer

I don't see a qualifier there, so it follows that all white people are the white enemy.

Can you imagine if McCain's church supported a doctrine that said "If God is not for us and against black people, then he is a murderer" would you be defending that? Again I ask why the double standard and how does having this double standard help promote unity?

Regis Philbin

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:01 PM

Geeze, not only does Barry throw his white grandma (who raised him as a child) under the bus, he backed the bus up and ran over her again. LOL :laugh:

Media won't pay any attention. He is their guy and gets a free pass until election day... :susp:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/20/obama-grandma-typical-white-person-fearing-everyone-she-doesnt-know

Obama: Grandma 'Typical White Person' Fearing Everyone She Doesn't Know

By Noel Sheppard | March 20, 2008 - 14:22 ET

It seems the more Barack Obama tries to explain the peculiar statement he made Tuesday concerning his white grandmother's "fear of black men who passed by her on the street," the more he's assuring attention regarding the matter.

Though it remains to be seen how much focus a media clearly looking to move beyond this subject will devote to it, Obama called into a Philadelphia sports radio station on Thursday making comments that, if publicized, might get him in even more trouble with white voters.

As transcribed by Breitbart moments ago:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

Wow. Is this really how a "typical white person" behaves? Shame on me for being so cordial all these years to folks I didn't know.

Regardless of my seeming ignorance of how the "typical white person" is supposed to behave around strangers, one wonders if Obama's declaration will be the subject of great debate and discussion by press members in the next 24 hours, or if it will be ignored by media desperately looking to get off this topic for the junior senator's sake?

Stay tuned.

Ya know, when I see black guys walking down the street with the baggy pants and the hats on backwards and the sunglasses and so forth, I get "scared" too. Gee, I wonder why that is??? I guess it's because I'm just a typical white person, huh Barry? :scratch:

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:09 PM

Just wait until the fall, when if you live a swing state, 527's will pound the hell out of you with ads reminding you Obama's church, his pastors, and that comment.

Could you even imagine the feeding frenzy if McCain said "typical Black person" in any context what-so-ever?

LesterX

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:18 PM

Ya know, when I see black guys walking down the street with the baggy pants and the hats on backwards and the sunglasses and so forth, I get "scared" too. Gee, I wonder why that is???

Because you're a racist who's shocked by the mere sight of a black person in your lily white world? Baggy pants + backward hats + sunglasses do not equate to "person about to harm you." If that alone frightens you, you have a problem.

Venisenvy

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:28 PM

What Obama said was a huge blunder, when I heard it I just knew it was a horrible move but i'm surprised it hasnt been a bigger deal. When taken in context I understand what he was trying to say, he should have never said what he said, you cannot generalize and it was a mistake. Also if we take his life in context, his grandmother did pretty much raise him for a good chunk of his life, i'm pretty sure it can be accepted that she is not a racist.

What he was trying to say I think was that when we are presented with something new that we do not know at all, we use caution and could be a little thrown back. Frankly that doesn't apply to just white people but everyone. The problem is that you NEVER generalize and Obama did just that and I believe there is a political price he will yet pay for that.

Regis Philbin

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:46 PM

Who are these 8%? :scratch: :susp2:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

Just 8% Have Favorable Opinion of Pastor Jeremiah Wright

Monday, March 17, 2008

Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has become part of the national political dialogue in recent days, is viewed favorably by 8% of voters nationwide. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% have an unfavorable view of the Pastor whose controversial comments have created new challenges for Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign.

Wright was Obama’s Pastor until he retired last month, but Obama has repudiated the preacher’s comments.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters. In addressing the issue, Obama warned against injecting race into the campaign .

Most voters, 56%, said Wright’s comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright’s comments.

However, among African-Americans, 29% said Wright’s comments made them more likely to support Obama. Just 18% said the opposite while 50% said Wright’s comments would have no impact.

Overall, voters are evenly divided as to whether Obama should resign his membership in the Church—42% say that he should while 40% disagree. White voters, by a 46% to 33% margin, say that Obama should leave the Church. African-American voters, by a 68% to 16% margin, say he should not. Wright retired last month as Pastor of the Church.

Incident

Mar 23rd, 2008, 11:55 PM

Because you're a racist who's shocked by the mere sight of a black person in your lily white world? Baggy pants + backward hats + sunglasses do not equate to "person about to harm you." If that alone frightens you, you have a problem.

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. -- Jesse Jackson http://www.oblogatoryanecdotes.com/2008/03/jesse-jackson-typical-white-person.html

LesterX

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:10 AM

And your point? Regis said nothing about "hearing footsteps" coming up behind him. He said that the mere sight of a black person walking down the street wearing certain clothes frightens him.

Good ol' Regis is just doing his usual job of parroting his hero Rush, who once said "Have you ever noticed that all composite pictures of criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:26 AM

And your point? Regis said nothing about "hearing footsteps" coming up behind him. He said that the mere sight of a black person walking down the street wearing certain clothes frightens him.

Point is that Jackson feared robbery until he turned around and was relieved he saw a white person, meaning that if he turned around and saw a black person he would not be relieved and still fear robbery.

I think you owe Regis an apology for calling him a racist or you need to name Jesse Jackson a racist. This Double Standard of some that seems to have run amuck on this board can in no way be helpful in promoting unity all it does is promote racial divisivness.

LesterX

Mar 24th, 2008, 01:56 AM

I owe Regis nothing of the sort. He brings up race at every opportunity around here when it's completely irrelevant and has made many a comment that can be labeled racist.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I don't really care what you think I should do.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 24th, 2008, 02:50 AM

Wright's talking points are not on that site any longer. Instead, there is a response to people like you, Paul, and specifically to Erik Rush's comments on the Hannity and Colmes show.

Go read it.

DoubleEdgeSword

Mar 24th, 2008, 03:07 AM

Paulie

Mar 24th, 2008, 03:26 AM

You had no choice in who your father was? Obama made a free choice as an adult to join an anti-semetic racist church and remain there...

Oh, that's rich. A member of the URC (aka catholic church) claiming that another religious organization is anti-semetic.

Unlike your fine organization, which has such a strong history of helping out the Jews (and Muslims and other Christians).

"The Inquisition, what a show!"

Paulie

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 08:20 AM

I owe Regis nothing of the sort. He brings up race at every opportunity around here when it's completely irrelevant and has made many a comment that can be labeled racist.

But not this comment, assuming, of course you don't believe that Jesse Jackson is a racist. Again I ask why the Double Standard?

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 08:29 AM

Oh, that's rich. A member of the URC (aka catholic church) claiming that another religious organization is anti-semetic.

Unlike your fine organization, which has such a strong history of helping out the Jews (and Muslims and other Christians).

"The Inquisition, what a show!"

Paulie

In my adult lifetime what has the Catholic Church done that is anti-semetic? You support the Democratic Party that in its History has done things as bad (support for slavery, etc.) as anything you claim the Catholic Church has done in the past. Institutions change.
As opposed to Obama's new pastor who made anti-semetic, anti-muslim, anti-Catholic and anti-republican remarks in his Easter Sermon, yesterday. Obama's Church is surely the church of unity.

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 08:45 AM

Here are some interesting links about the subject:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512189&ft=1&f=1016

http://www.beatitudessociety.org/node/710

http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html

Seems like just a bunch of excuses to tolerate Racism of Blacks. In an attempt justify a double standard that promotes divisivness on the basis of race.

LesterX

Mar 24th, 2008, 09:12 AM

But not this comment, assuming, of course you don't believe that Jesse Jackson is a racist. Again I ask why the Double Standard?

I guess you didn't get what I said the first time, so I'll repeat it for you:

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I don't really care what you think I should do.

And I'll reiterate what I've already said. Jesse Jackson's quote and Regis' statement are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Regis stated that he's scared of a random person on the street because of that person's color and clothing. In the situation Jesse Jackson described, he's already perceived a threat before he knows what the person looks like or is wearing. I don't see the situations as identical and will not be changing my opinion because you think I should.

As DES already said, your world view is very black and white. You have no willingness and/or capability to see complexity. I'm not getting into a long back and forth with you over your perception of a double standard as it's a complete waste of my time.

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 09:36 AM

BTW -- Who combined all these threads? Why was it done? It now makes it extremely confusing, to follow?

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 10:52 AM

I guess you didn't get what I said the first time, so I'll repeat it for you:

And I'll reiterate what I've already said. Jesse Jackson's quote and Regis' statement are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Regis stated that he's scared of a random person on the street because of that person's color and clothing. In the situation Jesse Jackson described, he's already perceived a threat before he knows what the person looks like or is wearing. I don't see the situations as identical and will not be changing my opinion because you think I should.

As DES already said, your world view is very black and white. You have no willingness and/or capability to see complexity. I'm not getting into a long back and forth with you over your perception of a double standard as it's a complete waste of my time.

My perception is that is a distinction without a difference. A ploy used, seemingly, so one doesn't have to address one of the issues at hand; acceptence of a double standard and the implications of that double standard on racial divisivness.

LesterX

Mar 24th, 2008, 11:38 AM

My perception is that is a distinction without a difference. A ploy used, seemingly, so one doesn't have to address one of the issues at hand; acceptence of a double standard and the implications of that double standard on racial divisivness.

And my perception is that it is a distinction with a difference. It's not a "ploy," it's a legitimate difference of opinion. There's no point to dragging this out further, as we're never going to agree. You've made your point, I've made mine.

pinky

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:18 PM

BTW -- Who combined all these threads? Why was it done? It now makes it extremely confusing, to follow?
No threads were combined. This is how the thread evolved.

The only thing confusing is some of the fuzzy logic and taking things out of context that a couple of people have done. Not naming any names here *coughyouandRegiscough* though.

LesterX

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:23 PM

^ I think Incident is right. Regis started a thread about Obama calling his grandma a "typical white person" that has been combined with this one. His post regarding Rev. Wright's approval ratings has been merged into this thread too.

pinky

Mar 24th, 2008, 12:45 PM

Well, that's possible. It would have happened between my trips here, so all I saw was the combined threads, and I guess then I have to wonder why it just now got mentioned.

~Aquarian86~

Mar 24th, 2008, 01:16 PM

~Aquarian86~

Mar 24th, 2008, 01:21 PM

Point is that Jackson feared robbery until he turned around and was relieved he saw a white person, meaning that if he turned around and saw a black person he would not be relieved and still fear robbery.

I think you owe Regis an apology for calling him a racist or you need to name Jesse Jackson a racist. This Double Standard of some that seems to have run amuck on this board can in no way be helpful in promoting unity all it does is promote racial divisivness.

I would call both Regis and Jesse a racist, since both fail to realize a robber can be anybody.

Incident

Mar 24th, 2008, 03:16 PM

I would call both Regis and Jesse a racist, since both fail to realize a robber can be anybody.

I have no problem with that statement since it does not display a Double Standard.

Incident

Mar 25th, 2008, 12:34 PM

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/print_558930.html
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.
"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."
Obama's lead in national polls has slipped since clips of the retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright began being played on national news programs. The uproar prompted Obama to give a wide-ranging speech on race in America a week ago. The Clinton campaign has refrained from getting involved in the controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question, denounced what she said was "hate speech." "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving." ....................

~Aquarian86~

Mar 26th, 2008, 09:08 AM

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/print_558930.html

You can also choose your husband Hillary, and from the history I read from other women (Monica not being the only one), I can't think of any woman who'd put up with being humiliated like that unless she wanted to run for president. No offense.

Also those 30 sec. soundbites of Wright. Um there's a full 10 minute version at Youtube of the "Chickens coming home to roost" sermon, and it shows him quoting somebody else. That's one of many examples of what was released to the internet. But despite that the MSM still put a hatchet job on the guy. At least be honest with us when you do it. But you know what, although it came off too extreme, it saddens me when a person still gets labeled "anti-American" and "unpatriotic" when they get critical of the government, especially when they served this country, and that's exactly what he was doing. If it was against the people that would be awful, but it wasn't. This is what I observed from seeing another FULL version of a 30 second soundbite.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:06 AM

You can also choose your husband Hillary, and from the history I read from other women (Monica not being the only one), I can't think of any woman who'd put up with being humiliated like that unless she wanted to run for president. No offense.

Also those 30 sec. soundbites of Wright. Um there's a full 10 minute version at Youtube of the "Chickens coming home to roost" sermon, and it shows him quoting somebody else. That's one of many examples of what was released to the internet. But despite that the MSM still put a hatchet job on the guy. At least be honest with us when you do it. But you know what, although it came off too extreme, it saddens me when a person still gets labeled "anti-American" and "unpatriotic" when they get critical of the government, especially when they served this country, and that's exactly what he was doing. If it was against the people that would be awful, but it wasn't. This is what I observed from seeing another FULL version of a 30 second soundbite.

If it was only that sermon or perhaps two or three more your point might have some validity. But Racist, Anti-semetic and Un-American statements prevade many of Wrights sermons and perhaps more importantly prevade the church itself.

From an open letter to Oprah published in the Church Bulletin June 10, 2007 http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf by Ali Baghdadi, Louis Farrakhan's Middle East adviser.
...I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.
Arabs have always supported the dismantling of this racist government. In 1962, African-Arab Sudan granted Mandela a passport to travel with to gain international support in his struggle to free his people. Libya, among other Arab states, provided Mandela and other African liberation movements, political as well as material support. As a result, Libya was designated by the White House as a terrorist rogue state. What a great honor! ...

This is a church of crazy anti-semetic racists.

~Aquarian86~

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:19 AM

If it was only that sermon or perhaps two or three more your point might have some validity. But Racist, Anti-semetic and Un-American statements prevade many of Wrights sermons and perhaps more importantly prevade the church itself.

From an open letter to Oprah published in the Church Bulletin June 10, 2007 http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf by Ali Baghdadi, Louis Farrakhan's Middle East adviser.

This is a church of crazy anti-semetic racists.

I must be ignorant, but I don't see a thing about anti-Semetic or racism, or Un-Americanism in that post. I guess you're one of those kind that if you say anything critical about American government policies, or anything critical about Israeli government policies, you get slapped with the "unAmerican" "Anti-Semetic" card right? Same thing happened with Jimmy Carter. I respect someone who speaks their mind about any issue especially flaws in government, than sheep who accept things as they are.

And from the looks of it our American government, not the people, did not treat Nelson Mandela well. If Jesus Christ himself was teaching on earth today, and became critical of certain Western governments, he'd be labeled a radical by the same people who claim to worship him.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:38 AM

I must be ignorant, but I don't see a thing about anti-Semetic or racism, or Un-Americanism in that post. I guess you're one of those kind that if you say anything critical about American government policies, or anything critical about Israeli government policies, you get slapped with the "unAmerican" "Anti-Semetic" card right? Same thing happened with Jimmy Carter. I respect someone who speaks their mind about any issue especially flaws in government, than sheep who accept things as they are.

And from the looks of it our American government, not the people, did not treat Nelson Mandela well. If Jesus Christ himself was teaching on earth today, and became critical of certain Western governments, he'd be labeled a radical by the same people who claim to worship him.

I think it is anti-semetic to say that Israel was testing a bomb in South Africa that killed only Blacks and Arabs. That statement is an attempt to turn Blacks and Arabs against Israel.

I think it is un-American to say that it is a great Honor to be deemed a terrorist state by the United States. Don't you?

~Aquarian86~

Mar 26th, 2008, 10:57 AM

I think it is anti-semetic to say that Israel was testing a bomb in South Africa that killed only Blacks and Arabs. That statement is an attempt to turn Blacks and Arabs against Israel.

I think it is un-American to say that it is a great Honor to be deemed a terrorist state by the United States. Don't you?

I think the last part would be un-American, and I think saying something false to turn people against Israel, including the people as opposed to only the government, would be anti-Semetic. But my question is, is that bomb testing part true. And if it is, it wouldn't be easy to find a story on it.

pinky

Mar 26th, 2008, 11:05 AM

The letter didn't say that the bomb killed ONLY Blacks and Arabs. However, given the policies of Israel and the apartheid government of South Africa at the time, those groups would appear to have been the primary targets of any bomb developed.

Would you like to try to argue that Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is unbiased and appropriate? Or that the treatment of black South Africans by the apartheid government there was anything short of horrific?

~Aquarian86~

Mar 26th, 2008, 11:15 AM

Oh I read wrong. I thought they were saying this bomb could kill Blacks and Arabs, but I guess they were killed. Look if they're testing bombs on the African continent it's clear the vast majority of people killed would be blacks and arabs. And if this indeed did happen, because I admit I never researched, of course it's going to turn those people against Israel or any country that's doing it. They shouldn't be labeled anti-Semetic, that's basically telling people they have the mentality of Hitler.

pinky

Mar 26th, 2008, 11:17 AM

My comment was directed at Incident, not you. ;) No bomb was ever used by Israel or South Africa.

LesterX

Mar 26th, 2008, 11:59 AM

I think it is anti-semetic to say that Israel was testing a bomb in South Africa that killed only Blacks and Arabs. That statement is an attempt to turn Blacks and Arabs against Israel.

First, as Pinky has already pointed out, the word "only" is not in the original text. That would be quite a sophisticated bomb to have the capability to kill Blacks and Arabs but leave any Asians, etc. in its midst unscathed.

Second, speaking out against the actions of the Israeli government does not make one anti-Semitic. If you want to apply that logic, then you must be a racist because you have spoken out against an African American church.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:17 PM

...

Second, speaking out against the actions of the Israeli government does not make one anti-Semitic. If you want to apply that logic, then you must be a racist because you have spoken out against an African American church.

The statement is anti-semetic because it is specifically attempting to turn blacks against Israel, with some crackpot charge. Not the Israeli Government. It is just playing on hatred for Jews. Not something unusual for this church. Even in this past Sunday Obama's new pastor made anti-semetic remarks in addition to remarks that were anti-muslim, anti-catholic and anti-Republican.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:23 PM

First, as Pinky has already pointed out, the word "only" is not in the original text. That would be quite a sophisticated bomb to have the capability to kill Blacks and Arabs but leave any Asians, etc. in its midst unscathed..

Which in part is why this charge is so insane. There is no other way to read the line Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. It can only mean that it was a bomb that killed on the basis of ethnicity. In other words kills only Blacks and Arabs.

~Aquarian86~

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:28 PM

My comment was directed at Incident, not you. ;) No bomb was ever used by Israel or South Africa.

Don't worry, I know. I was mainly responding to Incident's post. Thanks for clearing that up about the bomb situation.

pinky

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:33 PM

Which in part is why this charge is so insane. There is no other way to read the line Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. It can only mean that it was a bomb that killed on the basis of ethnicity. In other words kills only Blacks and Arabs.
Obviously, there most certainly IS another way to read it, as at least two of us HAVE read it another way.
The statement is anti-semetic because it is specifically attempting to turn blacks against Israel, with some crackpot charge. Not the Israeli Government. It is just playing on hatred for Jews.
Was it the Israeli people who were supposedly building this smart bomb, or the Israeli government that was working with South Africa?

My, my, my, Paul, you don't usually leave yourself this wide open. :p

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:40 PM

Obviously, there most certainly IS another way to read it, as at least two of us HAVE read it another way.

Was it the Israeli people who were supposedly building this smart bomb, or the Israeli government that was working with South Africa?

My, my, my, Paul, you don't usually leave yourself this wide open. :p

Again, the point is that the term Israel is very closely aligned with the term Jew, more so, perhaps than any other country.

pinky

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:42 PM

No, the point is that you said that it was designed to inflame people against the Jewsish people, despite the fact that it was a government that was being accused of constructing and testing a bomb.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:49 PM

No, the point is that you said that it was designed to inflame people against the Jewsish people, despite the fact that it was a government that was being accused of constructing and testing a bomb.

Many people, especially in the Arab world, make no distinction between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

LesterX

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:55 PM

The statement is anti-semetic because it is specifically attempting to turn blacks against Israel, with some crackpot charge. Not the Israeli Government. It is just playing on hatred for Jews. Not something unusual for this church. Even in this past Sunday Obama's new pastor made anti-semetic remarks in addition to remarks that were anti-muslim, anti-catholic and anti-Republican.

I don't see how the statement is "playing on hatred for Jews." You are conflating taking issue with Israeli policies with anti-Semitism; the two are not synonymous. Are all the Jewish folks out there opposed to Israeli policies anti-Semitic? How about Orthodox Jews who oppose the existence of the state of Israel because they think it is contrary to Jewish law? Are they anti-Semitic?

Do you have a link to the remarks made this Sunday that you are describing as anti-Semetic, anti-Muslim, etc.?

pinky

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Many people, especially in the Arab world, make no distinction between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Are you implying that people in the Arab countries aren't smart enough to make that distinction?

LesterX

Mar 26th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Many people, especially in the Arab world, make no distinction between the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

And many people do make a distinction. The entire premise of your contention is that there is no distinction being made. That's an assumption on your part not borne out by any facts. I don't understand the relevance of the "especially in the Arab world" reference. Since when is an African American church in Chicago part of the Arab world?

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 02:30 PM

. Since when is an African American church in Chicago part of the Arab world?

Who is the author of the letter?

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 02:32 PM

Are you implying that people in the Arab countries aren't smart enough to make that distinction?

I'm saying that many in the arab world don't make the distinction?

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 02:42 PM

Same guy 1998 http://voteforusa.com/zionusa1.htm

Zionists in the White House "kosher" kitchen are cooking!
Will the Arab and Muslim masses spoil the broth?!
By: Ali Baghdadi - Arab Journal, Chicago, October 6, 1998

Something "kosher" is being cooked up for the Middle East and itsmells bad! The chief cooks, who have taken over the U.S. foreign, defense and national security policies of the United States, plan to set the Middle East ablaze! The President of the most powerful nation on earth is now in the back seat, crippled and helpless. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and their Zionist brethren are in full control of the White House "kitchen"! They decide who, what and when things will go into the pot.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 03:01 PM

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg68580.html

Same Nut Job again.

From Auschwitz to Nes Tziyona near Tel-Aviv
The Angel of Death is alive and well
By: Ali Baghdadi
(Arab Journal, Chicago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED])
November 19 1998

Dr. Josef Mengele, wartime physician at Auschwitz known as the Angel of
Death who allegedly performed experiments on holocaust victims, is not
actually dead. The doctor who, according to Zionist so-called historians,
helped in the "extermination" of six million Jews, a claim rejected by
highly acclaimed Jewish and non-Jewish scholars, is alive and well.
Frequently, his representatives have been given a hero's welcome in
western capitals, allowed to address the General Assembly of the United
Nations, received with thunderous applause by the United States Congress
and offered red carpet treatment at the White House.

Mengele and Israel are actually two faces to the same coin. Mengele
passed away as a poor man in Brazil in1984 after four decades in hiding.
His spirit, however, survives. His work is carried out by Israel, the
Zionist state that the west transplanted into Palestine. This can be
clearly seen today, not only in the Zionist ideology alone, but also in
Israel's conduct!

Though all the facts as they developed have been known by the American
news media, this media, for obvious reasons, refuses to mention that
Israel (Mengele) has been working around the clock on new experiments that
are more challenging and complicated than the ones carried out earlier by
the Germans. The November 15th issue of the Sunday Times, the British
paper that revealed detailed data about Israel's clandestine nuclear
program in the eighties, also broke the story of the new secretive work
that the state of Israel is currently doing. With US technology, finance
and highly classified data on biological research at its disposal, Israel
has been developing a new type of weapon that is more sophisticated than
the "screw-worm" America covertly unleashed over Iraq which, as reported
by the British Independent a few months ago, can consume an entire cow in
less than seven days.

The Zionist" state is working on a "smart" bomb which, unlike the bomb
America used almost seven years ago against Iraqi cities and villages and
which resulted in the death of tens of thousands of innocent men, women
and children, is really "smart". The new bomb does not turn people into
ashes. As a matter of fact, it does not cause injury nor spill a drop of
human or animal' sacred blood. Certainly, this "smart" bomb does not
destroy homes, schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, shelters, food
factories and baby milk formula plants, nor does it inflict any harm to
bridges and highways.

The "good news" is the fact that this bomb is so smart that it does not
kill "chosen people", Jews. It does not require a delivery system, and
Jews can release it in the air or the water system with no danger to their
health. According to an Israeli scientist, it only targets Arabs,
particularly Iraqis. Of course, with little more effort and fine-tuning
coupled with Zionist "ingenuity" and determination, the bomb can be
further enhanced to annihilate Iranians, Pakistanis, Indonesian and other
Muslims. As usual, America, Israel's strategic ally, provides all the
know-how it has and pays the bill.................

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 03:04 PM

One fine Church, Obama belongs to. huh?

Regis Philbin

Mar 26th, 2008, 05:58 PM

Jesus would not approve of this guy. LOL :laugh:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-pastor-wright-italians-look-down.html

Obama's Pastor Wright: "Italians Look Down Their Garlic Noses... Jesus Got Public Lynching Italian Style"

"Italians Look Down Their Garlic Noses-- Gave Jesus Public Lynching Italian Style"
...Amen.

In the latest Trumpet Magazine the Rev. Jeremiah Wright teaches his flock about the history of the crucifixion of Jesus.

It was a wonderful eulogy by the Reverend.

CNS News reported on the latest article by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in the Trinity United Church of Christ's Trumpet magazine:

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

"He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others. The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."
Don't even say it... Barack missed this edition of the newsletter, too.

LesterX

Mar 26th, 2008, 06:05 PM

Who is the author of the letter?

An Arab American. Not that it's relevant, since your claim is that many people in the Arab world don't differentiate between Israeli policies and the Jewish people, and African Americans at a Chicago church, whom you say this letter was intended to persuade, are not part of the "Arab world."

After reading the stuff you posted authored by this guy, I agree that he is a nut job. That doesn't, however, change the fact that someone can be against Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. This guy appears to be both.

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 09:36 PM

The question you musk ask yourself then is why did the Church feel it important to print this nut job's rant in their church bulletin?

What is it about this church that makes it different from most other churches in this country that they would endorse this guy?

Incident

Mar 26th, 2008, 09:54 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
http://static.jpost.com/images/2002/site/jplogo.gif (http://www.jpost.com/)
Barack Obama blasts pro-Hamas Op-Ed
Ron Kampeas/ JTA , THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 23, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama says that a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church's bulletin was "outrageously wrong."
In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled "Pastor's Page," the Trinity United Church in Chicago reprinted an article by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook. The article, which originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, justifies the Palestinian terrorist group's denial of Israel's right to exist.
The church's pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr., who retired this year, has stirred controversy for Obama's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination with statements likening Israel to colonialists and blaming attacks on the United States in part on its support for Israel.
In slamming the Hamas piece, Obama noted that he strongly rejects some of his longtime pastor's views.
"I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn't in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin," Obama said in a statement e-mailed to JTA late Thursday.
"Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor." Obama has consistently condemned Hamas and defended Israel's military responses to rock\et attacks. ..............

You can read the pro-Hamas Op-ed in the church bulletin. http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf

Incident

Mar 27th, 2008, 11:28 PM

An Arab American. Not that it's relevant, since your claim is that many people in the Arab world don't differentiate between Israeli policies and the Jewish people, and African Americans at a Chicago church, whom you say this letter was intended to persuade, are not part of the "Arab world."

But if we take in context this with Black Liberation Theology, it is apparent that this church identifies with the nut jobs and terrorist organizations of the Arab World that feel the Jews are oppressing the Arab people of the Middle East. Followers of Black Liberation Theology feel that Blacks in this Country are being oppressed by Whites in a similar manner. That is why you have the nutjob Rev Wright echoing his Arab counterpart Ali Baghdadi when he accuses the Government of introducing the Aids virus into the Black population. More troubling is the part of Black Liberation Theology which endorses the belief that.....If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer,..... . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. ....power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.. This is frighteningly similar to the rational used by Hamas which this church seems to endorse by printing a letter from a Hamas official in their bulletin.