them damn jews are at it again(shit they heard me)"I MIS-SPOKE, FUCK OFF".... lol fucking tool
The article implies an incorrect cause in stating "Obama was a longtime member of the church but resigned from it and cut ties with Wright after videos surfaced during the presidential campaign showing Wright's sometimes provocative sermons."
No, after the videos surfaced Obama said he could no more distance himself from Rev Wright than he could from the black community, and remained a member of the church.
It was later when, in Obama's view, Wright "disrespected" him by saying he was acting like a politician that he cut his ties. That Wright had preached these things in the church Obama for the most part had attended weekly for years and brought his family to, or that the videos had appeared, was not the cause.
The other side of this coin is the idea that Obama was a young impressionable simpleton that had his ideology shaped over the years by Wright. He wound up in that church because he found a place that would further reinforce the America hating mindset that had been in place since college. The "black liberation theology" that Wright openly propounds (and the Bible knows nothing about) is overtly marxist and is a comprehensive system of thought upon which that church was built by the time Obama got there.
Anybody who believes Jeremiah wright was preaching the historical Christian gospel and on occasion let his anti American marxist racism bubble to the surface is an idiot. Obama went there, stayed there for 20 years, was married there and had his children baptized there because he shares that churches ideology. An ideology that is antagonistic to the core with every major principle this Nation was built on and is in fact much closer to that of our enemies.
We are witnessing before our eyes what may turn out to be the decisive chapter in our history. The chapter where centralized power was finally and irreversibly transferred from "we the People" to they the tyrants.
that is all.
That there's an anti-Semitic pastor on the South Side gives me absolutely no distress. This is a beautiful country. I really face no bar to opportunity because of my religion. In historical perspective this is very, very small stuff. I trust that Abe Foxman is on his ass, and I'm glad of that, but I think we already are pretty vigilant about bigotry in this country and there's truly nothing to worry about.
I don't think Wright's anti-American, really. The "God damn America" speech was a rebuke to the criminal justice system, which is a national shame, in my opinion. Critical harangues are a standard part of the prophetic tradition and certainly of the Christian tradition in this country. "God damn America, for treating her citizens as less than human." That's hyperbolic, but it makes sense, especially to an audience of people who have gone to too many funerals.
Do a little reading in "Black Liberation Theology" or even liberation theology generally, but especially James Cone who Wright himself owns by name as his major influence. Se how undistressed you are then.
That there's an America hating racist marxist church on the south side doesn't distress me at all. That their favorite son is now in the White House does.
I base this not on a couple publicized statements, I know better than that, but on the ideology that is openly and proudly espoused there. Liberation theology being a marxist system overlayed with Christian terminology is common knowledge and has been for 40 years.
Yes, he is absolutely un-American. And he is really more than that he is Anti-American. You forget he blames the government for everything from aids to crack.
Also according to their own website (the church's) he has "a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA".
Maybe it's because I grew up in Chicago myself, but it's just not that weird to me. There is nothing on that website that I find shocking. It's a black church steeped in liberation theology. What's the problem with that? We're going to have to disagree on this, I'm afraid.
James Cone in his own words: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116
First, the tenants are socialist, but more than that it's a racial supremacist group. I'm assuming that if you don't find anything wrong with that ideology, you also don't take issue with other supremacist groups (assumingly non-violent ones). Even more disturbing is that they practice these ideologies under the mask of a Christian church.
Now, I'm not saying that we should try to run them out of the country or something. I'm just saying they are ignorant and just plain wrong. But, it is a free country, they can be as racist and dumb as they want. BUT, it also means I get to call them dumb, ignorant, black supremacists.
Ever notice that the black power solute and the Nazi salute are strikingly similar?
Oh shit! Now I am convinced.
The mistake you're making is that you think that if the words "black" and "white" are interchanged, that we should assign the same importance or moral value to a statement. It's the same error that leads people to, say, call Sotomayor a racist, reasoning that it would undoubtedly be racist if she had suggested that white judges came to wiser conclusions.
The problem is, this is historically blind thinking. The significance of racism is a function of the group that is the object of racism: how it has been treated, in the past and the present, and what degree of power it holds, and what opportunities are open to it. To be clear: words that are morally wrong when directed at one group need not be wrong when directed at another group.
How would you feel about a "redhead supremacy" organization? I'd find it absurd, rather than either good or evil. I wouldn't class it with a white supremacy organization. Historical and social context matter.
That was kind of a joke.
That is possibly the fruitiest and most idiotic expose of racism I have ever seen.
That aside, let me be clear. If Wright's church was populated by anglo saxons, white as the wind driven snow it would have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the anti American perversion of the historic Christian religion being spread there is nothing more than a marxist world view couched in biblical terminology. A variety of the same marxism we spent 50 years defeating. James Cone is a white hating America hating ideologue who views our society as an enemy to defeat. He very wisely recognizes this is best accomplished by social subversion rather than a frontal assault.
His dreams are coming true only people like you are robbing him of the additional satisfaction of having his enemy aware of their downfall.
Actually differing your judgments concerning a persons actions or beliefs based on that personâ??s race (what you were just suggesting) IS RACISM. The effective race matters not when discussing racism. Thoughts, judgments, and actions based in or augmented by racial (or gender) lines is wrong.
If matters or racism (or sexism) are situationally dependant, you could hardly judge pro-slavery advocates, or anti-suffrage people for there behavior or beliefs. They were just following mainstream society of the day. Essentially, they were raised that way, you canâ??t fault them. For there are apparently no moral absolutes, so you cannot condemn the whole society of the day.
You could certainly argue that groups were needed to advance racial equality, but the point is supposed to be EQUALITY. The point should be for those groups to no longer be needed. I think most of the advocacy groups in todayâ??s society donâ??t actually want equality. They want entitlements, there is a big difference. When you cross the line from promoting a race to equal status to desiring and pushing for a race to be above another. I personally think groups like the NAACP cross that line.
I think a lot of feminist advocacy groups cross that line too.
They go beyond promoting the equality of groups to advocating â??extraâ?? rights, or even worse, attempting to tear down the rights of others.
As for Sotomayor, the is both sexist and racist. Period. End of story. Her belief that a female Hispanic is a better judge than a white male (something she has repeated over and over) is both ignorant and wrong. Period.
The only intelligible argument that Iâ??ve yet heard is whether or not, given her situation, that racism is acceptable. This is essentially what you are arguing, only you are trying to say that if itâ??s a minority it canâ??t be racism.
Well how about this, look at what is happening with the male advocacy group at BU. They want to fight for the promotion of male rights, and to fight against many of the problems that effect men. Men have lower graduation rates, multiple times the suicide rates, even higher unemployment than women, est.
But do you want to bet most of the feminists out there are AGAINST a group that to help lower suicide, equal out graduation rates, and equal out unemployment rates between the sexes? Isnâ??t fighting against those things sexist?
Considering the statistics on the situation, shouldnâ??t we be more sympathetic to discrimination against men than against women?
Tribulus at a barbecue last weekend.
I keep hoping for more from you, but continue to be disappointed.
I'm not nearly as good a writer as he is, so I'll just quote Ta-Nehisi Coates on race, conservatism, and Sotomayor.
"It isn't, for instance, the fact that Sotomayor was raised in an era where government-backed redlining was still legal, it's the fact that some students at Yale demanded a Chicano history course that's the issue. Likewise, it isn't the oppressive identity politics practiced by conservatives for the past 30 years that's disturbing, but Sotomayor's response to it. To be a true conservative is to be more disturbed by victimology, than actual victimizing. It is to claim to abhor evil--but to abhor the response to evil even more. "
The gist is, that in perspective, white-on-nonwhite discrimination has been and is so much more pervasive, so much more institutionalized, than anything going the opposite way, that the racial/ethnic focus of people like Wright and Sotomayor and to some extent Obama is better understood as a response to racism than its equivalent.
This, from the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":
"I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."
This business of "grappling with underlying causes" is what I'm trying to get at. You say "differing your judgments concerning a persons actions or beliefs based on that person's race IS RACISM." I say, if we're aware of social structures and historical causes, then differing our judgments is the only way not to be racist.
In another thread, people did not believe me that there are some liberals that deny that blacks can be racist, that claim inherently racism is limited to evil whites.
Sorry lady, the fact that you look at someone's race as part of your equation of deciding whether you approve or disapprove of them or their actions or words means you are a racist.
The fact that you feel good about yourself because you think your race-based decisions are on the side of good doesn't change the fact that you practice and defend racism.
How a person can even possibly take a statement such as that that only by differing in one's judgments according to the race of a person can one NOT be racist as having the remotest trace of integrity or truth to it is, while to a person unfamiliar with modern liberalism undoubtedly baffling, actually just characteristic. But it's a sad commentary. At least the Queen in Alice in Wonderland was aware that the two impossible things she believed before breakfast were impossible.
Why do you believe that she is a liberal?
Hm. Never been called a racist before. I suppose by your definitions I am.
I wouldn't say that blacks can't be racist. I've read some Nation of Islam stuff that is racist towards whites. Blacks can be anti-Semitic, undoubtedly, and I think Farrakhan is, and quite possibly Wright. I don't think that anyone, by virtue of race, can be excused of everything. What I believe is that the rightness or wrongness of a racial view -- and in fact the meaning of a racial view -- does, of course, depend on who's saying it about whom. "All things being equal, I'd rather a white candidate get the job" would be a statement I'd have a problem with. "All things being equal, i'd rather a minority candidate get the job" is a perfectly normal and justifiable statement, in my view. Give that philosophy whatever name you will.
Maybe it has something to do with prioritarianism: the idea that we ought to prioritize, to some degree, the interests of whoever's worst off in society. Extreme rhetoric is more justifiable or understandable when it comes from a position of disadvantage. We can rightly expect more of the privileged. Not everybody thinks this way, I realize, but if you do think this way it leads naturally to having typical liberal views on race.
I don't think political or social views give any of us much call to feel good about ourselves, though. Smugness is a danger, but i do try to avoid it.