Victoria Jackson implies Obama is the anti-Christ…
-
jnatch — 17 years ago(November 02, 2008 09:02 AM)
as for the "imply" vs "all he does is make a statement": wow, talk about splitting hairs
and why do people on the right love the slippery slope argument? I guess its because one of them used it once. Same as the socialist thing. Once one rightie says something most of the others parrot the same words.
goosestep on! -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(November 02, 2008 11:19 PM)
as for the "imply" vs "all he does is make a statement": wow, talk about splitting hairs
and why do people on the right love the slippery slope argument? I guess its because one of them used it once. Same as the socialist thing. Once one rightie says something most of the others parrot the same words.
goosestep on!
Actually, I don't recall ever hearing anyone else say that. It's something that I
picked up on from my college days while working on my political science degree.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(November 20, 2008 09:00 PM)
Is it racist to rant against the KKK now?
No, in fact I don't think it ever has been racist to criticize the kkk.
And what exactly do you think is a trait of his that resembles the anti-christ?
I didn't say that, she did.
I'm not sure what traits if any she was referring to in her statement. I think what she may have been referring to, is the hysteria which has surrounded his candidacy for the last year and a half. His constantly being referred to as Messiah, Saviour, the 2nd Coming, the One. It all has a very eerie tone to it for Christians.
Personally, I see nothing remarkable about him at all. He is nothing more to me than a politician, a masterful one I might add but at the end of the day, he's still just another politician.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(November 21, 2008 04:55 AM)
socialism is just a slippery slope to Marxism and communism.
I see your political science degree is worth about as much as your years of amateur bible study.
Because of your complete inability to relate to the experiences of other races, other classes, it's easy for you to reduce everything to good and evil. Indeed, you seem incapable of discussing complex issues any other way. What is it that feeds your need to go from board to board, looking for threads that accuse one or another person of being the antichrist?
As for his being a racist, I will say that he sat in a racist church listening to racist hate speech for nearly 20 years and only denounced the hateful words of his pastor when it became such an issue during the campaign
Are you calling Obama racist or not? Out with it.
I tried to discuss Wright with you before. Do you know what he said before his infamous Goddamn America line? Do you wonder why that line is never put in its proper context?
This is what he said:
And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America.
Doesn't his anger make more sense in context, hmmm?
Now explain to me what makes Wright a racist? Do appeals to racial bitterness make someone a racist? -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(November 23, 2008 10:33 PM)
I see your political science degree is worth about as much as your years of amateur bible study.
Thank you for your opinion:)
Because of your complete inability to relate to the experiences of other races, other classes, it's easy for you to reduce everything to good and evil. Indeed, you seem incapable of discussing complex issues any other way. What is it that feeds your need to go from board to board, looking for threads that accuse one or another person of being the antichrist?
Actually, I don't do that but thank you once again for your opinion.
Are you calling Obama racist or not? Out with it.
I'm not "calling" him anything. I'm just pointing out the facts that call into question the sincerity of his denouncement of Rev Wright in April of 2008. It's about 20 years too late.
I tried to discuss Wright with you before. Do you know what he said before his infamous Goddamn America line? Do you wonder why that line is never put in its proper context?
It's obvious the man hates America due to its
past history
of racism. But now, it's 2008, so it's time to put that past behind us and work together for the equality of
all
people, not just black people. As long as racists like Wright are around to dredge up America's ugly past, the racial divide will never begin to heal.
This is what he said:
And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, not God Bless America.
Yes I've heard the entire quote, over and over and over again. The people responsible for those offenses, are long dead. It's time to get over it.
Doesn't his anger make more sense in context, hmmm?
Not in the least.
Now explain to me what makes Wright a racist?
His hateful words denouncing
white
America.
Do appeals to racial bitterness make someone a racist?
Appeals for what?? Get over it!! and for the love of God, let the wounds begin to heal.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(November 26, 2008 06:12 AM)
I'm not "calling" him anything. I'm just pointing out the facts that call into question the sincerity of his denouncement of Rev Wright in April of 2008. It's about 20 years too late.
Like Scripture, facts don't stand on their own. They require interpretation.
Wright isn't Hitler. He wasn't calling for anyone's extermination and he never called for the segregation of races. Many whites believe he has played a positive role in his community and he's been awarded several honorary doctorates. Why don't you get over it and "move on", as you keep counselling blacks to do?
It's obvious the man hates America due to its past history of racism. But now, it's 2008, so it's time to put that past behind us
Pre-election polls indicated that Obama's lead would likely have been 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice. Just because bigotry is down, doesn't mean it's an insignificant factor in politics, the economy and society today.
As long as racists like Wright are around to dredge up America's ugly past, the racial divide will never begin to heal.
Racism does not equal racial bitterness.
Dredging up unpleasant facts about America's past doesn't make one a racist either.
Covering up a racist past isn't the key to healing.
What is your definition of racism and where is your proof that Wright is a racist besides the fact that he singles out white America? After all, white America has been in charge in this country ever since its founding. Was it black, Latino and Asian America that consigned the Indians to reservations? Was it black, Latino and Asian America that masterminded the Tuskegee experiment or instituted Jim Crow laws?
The people responsible for those offenses, are long dead. It's time to get over it.
That's always easy for people to say when they're unaffected by it. Now while recursive shame and anger may not be a healthy thing (and many blacks would agree with that), that's light years from saying it's completely unwarranted.
I'm curious: have any of your ancestors ever been oppressed by anyone because of their race, religion or ethnicity?
Not in the least.
Maybe the problem is that you have an anger deficit. You are not angry about the past oppression of other people because you don't love them enough or care about them enough. I have already gotten that impression from the Oprah's views on Christ thread, which incidentally, you abandoned without answering my last post.
If your wife or sister were tortured and raped, and the killer was walking around scot free, would you carry around some anger?
Why is it that I, as a white, don't feel threatened or personally affronted by Wright's comments but you do? -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(November 26, 2008 08:26 PM)
Like Scripture, facts don't stand on their own. They require interpretation.
Many scriptures do stand on their own.
Wright isn't Hitler. He wasn't calling for anyone's extermination and he never called for the segregation of races. Many whites believe he has played a positive role in his community and he's been awarded several honorary doctorates. Why don't you get over it and "move on", as you keep counselling blacks to do?
I never said he was Hitler but he is a hate speech provocateur who will not allow the racial strife to heal.
[
] Pre-election polls indicated that Obama's lead would likely have been 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice. Just because bigotry is down, doesn't mean it's an insignificant factor in politics, the economy and society today.
Of course it's not an insignificant factor, because of people who continue to stir the pot, like the good reverend Wright.
Racism does not equal racial bitterness. Dredging up unpleasant facts about America's past doesn't make one a racist either. Covering up a racist past isn't the key to healing.
I'm not saying cover up anything but he is a pastor in a church not a school teacher. It's not his job to teach on racism. It's his job to supposedly to preach the gospel.
What is your definition of racism and where is your proof that Wright is a racist besides the fact that he singles out white America? After all, white America has been in charge in this country ever since its founding. Was it black, Latino and Asian America that consigned the Indians to reservations? Was it black, Latino and Asian America that masterminded the Tuskegee experiment or instituted Jim Crow laws?
You just answered your own question.
That's always easy for people to say when they're unaffected by it. Now while recursive shame and anger may not be a healthy thing (and many blacks would agree with that), that's light years from saying it's completely unwarranted.
I'm curious: have any of your ancestors ever been oppressed by anyone because of their race, religion or ethnicity?
No that I'm aware of.
Maybe the problem is that you have an anger deficit. You are not angry about the past oppression of other people because you don't love them enough or care about them enough. I have already gotten that impression from the Oprah's views on Christ thread, which incidentally, you abandoned without answering my last post.
I'm just not an angry person. Plus I'm not the type of person to blame my mistakes on others.
If your wife or sister were tortured and raped, and the killer was walking around scot free, would you carry around some anger?
Actually, my first wife was raped but I let go of that anger long ago.
Why is it that I, as a white, don't feel threatened or personally affronted by Wright's comments but you do?
I don't feel threatened or affronted either.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(November 27, 2008 07:44 AM)
Many scriptures do stand on their own.
"Many", but not all? That sounds like progress to me. It wasn't long ago that you were arguing that scripture doesn't require in5b4terpretation.
but he is a hate speech provocateur who will not allow the racial strife to heal.
Where do you draw the line between hate speech and tough criticism of American history and foreign policy? Is Noam Chomsky a hate speech provocateur? Is Michael Savage a hate speech provocateur on the level of a Jeremiah Wright, or worse? Is Ann Coulter a hate speech provocateur? Does she offend you as much or more than Rev. Wright?
Of course it's not an insignificant factor, because of people who continue to stir the pot, like the good reverend Wright
Talk about blaming the victim, it sounds as though you're blaming Rev. Wright for the white racism out there.
Niiice.
But consider this: the whites who are not racist tend to be disappointed with or turned off by Wright's approach, not actually angry with him.
I'm not saying cover up anything but he is a pastor in a church not a school teacher. It's not his job to teach on racism. It's his job to supposedly to preach the gospel.
Yet you think it's Charles Stanley's job to teach economics.
No that I'm aware of.
Then maybe a little humility and empathy on your part is called for.
What is your definition of racism and where is your proof that Wright is a racist besides the fact that he singles out white America? After all, white America has been in charge in this country ever since its founding. Was it black, Latino and Asian America that consigned the Indians to reservations? Was it black, Latino and Asian America that masterminded the Tuskegee experiment or instituted Jim Crow laws?
You just answered your own question.
And you evaded it, again. If you think someone is racist because they condemn the institutionalized racism put into place by whites, then you have no idea what racism is.
I'm just not an angry person. Plus I'm not the type of person to blame my mistakes on others.
And that's fine, but when you don't react to injustice with anger or deep sadness, (whether you need to carry it around with you all the time is another matter) then we have reason to suspect that you don't care. I already know that you're capable of anger, because you can't seem to let the Rev. Wright matter go. You travel from board to board condemning his remarks, so don't tell me you're not capable of feeling anger. The question is not whether you feel anger but what makes you angry and why. From what I've read of your posts, it's clear to me that black racism or what you perceive to be black racism makes you angry while white racism does not.
Actually, my first wife was raped but I let go of that anger long ago.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people are better at letting go of anger than others. Often it has to do with one's appraisal of the situation. If a person feels that they've been deeply shamed by something that happened to them, and can find no way to discharge that shame effectively, they can end up carrying unproductive shame-anger around with them to their graves.
I don't feel threatened or affronted either.
Of course you do. That's why you keep talking about it, even though there's a world of things in politics that should offend you far more than a couple of snatches of Wright's overheated rhetoric. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(December 16, 2008 11:59 AM)
"Many", but not all? That sounds like progress to me. It wasn't long ago that you were arguing that scripture doesn't require interpretation."
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
Where do you draw the line between hate speech and tough criticism of American history and foreign policy? Is Noam Chomsky a hate speech provocateur?" Is Michael Savage a hate speech provocateur on the level of a Jeremiah Wright, or worse? Is Ann Coulter a hate speech provocateur? Does she offend you as much or more than Rev. Wright?
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
"Talk about blaming the victim, it sounds as though you're blaming Rev. Wright for the white racism out there. [
] Niiice.
I'm not blaming the victim at all. I'5b4m just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
But consider this: the whites who are not racist tend to be disappointed with or turned off by Wright's approach, not actually angry with him.
I'm not angry with him either.
[
] Yet you think it's Charles Stanley's job to teach economics.
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Then maybe a little humility and empathy on your part is called for.
Thank you for your opinion.
What is your definition of racism and where is your proof that Wright is a racist besides the fact that he singles out white America? After all, white America has been in charge in this country ever since its founding. Was it black, Latino and Asian America that consigned the Indians to reservations? Was it black, Latino and Asian America that masterminded the Tuskegee experiment or instituted Jim Crow laws?
No, it was white America but it was a white America that has long since died out. That white America 5b4and the white America of today are two completely different animals and the sooner the good rev realizes that, the better off he'll be. Although, I suspect that the good rev is not really interested in allowing the racial scars of the past to heal because they empowers him.
And you evaded it, again. If you think someone is racist because they condemn the institutionalized racism put into place by whites, then you have no idea what racism is.
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
And that's fine, but when you don't react to injustice with anger or deep sadness, (whether you need to carry it around with you all the time is another matter) then we have reason to suspect that you don't care. I already know that you're capable of anger, because you can't seem to let the Rev. Wright matter go. You travel from board to board condemning his remarks, so don't tell me you're not capable of feeling anger. The question is not whether you feel anger but what makes you angry and why. From what I've read of your posts, it's clear to me that black racism or what you perceive to be black racism makes you angry while white racism does not.
All racism is wrong period.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people are better at letting go of anger than o16d0thers. Often it has to do with one's appraisal of the situation. If a person feels that they've been deeply shamed by something that happened to them, and can find no way to discharge that shame effectively, they can end up carrying unproductive shame-anger around with them to their graves.
I agree.
Of course you do. That's why you keep talking about it, even though there's a world of things in politics that should offend you far more than a couple of snatches of Wright's overheated rhetoric.
No I don't but thank you for your opinion.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(January 10, 2009 05:46 AM)
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
I don't have time to comb through our previous posts so let me ask you this instead:
How do YOU know which scriptures require interpretation and which don't? And how should this be self-evident to the rest of us?
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
PLEEEEASE tell me that was a joke. Please. When Ann Coulter jokes about killing liberals, about "ragheads" and about assassinating President Clinton, you don't think that causes dissension?
It doesn't cause dissension when Michael Savage says: "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see how do you like that? a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it!"
All racism is wrong period.
So you agree that Michael Savage is wrong, yet he doesn't cause dissension with his vicious racist rants?
I'm just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
Know what I think? I think you're angry at Wright because he has the temerity to make you feel guilty about things you'd rather keep covered up. It makes you angry to have to confront unpleasant truths about race in America when you would rather assume that all the bad stuff is well behind us now.
it was a white America that has long since died out.
I'm not talking about Jim Crow laws. I'm talking about racism in general, you know, the kind which may have cost Obama 6 percentage points in the general election. The kind that Michael Savage spouts that you feel doesn't cause dissension. Tell me what you make of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-ameri ca
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Again, I'm not going to 5b4take the time to go over your past posts atm, but I'll ask this instead. Do you think that Stanley has any business making authoritative pronouncements on economic affairs to his congregation, (some of whom are very credulous, deferential people)?
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
There's something to "evade" if you let me answer the question for YOU. -
Dont_call_me_Junior — 17 years ago(January 31, 2009 10:56 PM)
I think she's a biased ignorant insane cow. Obama's the antichrist? How is that? He wants to improve health care. What a monster!
She has also said that she thinks Fox News is the "only source of real journalism." Ok that should be a real glimpse into her i5b4ntellect and psyche. She obviously has no idea what journalism is. That makes her stupid, aswell as being a biased ignorant insane cow. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(March 11, 2009 01:47 AM)
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
The truth, is that some verses are easily interpreted and others aren't. Some verses are nothing more than the recounting of an event whereas others are not and usually have a much deeper meaning.
I don't have time to comb through our previous posts so let me ask you this instead:
How do YOU know which scriptures require interpretation and which don't? And how should this be self-evident to the rest of us?
For me, I know them when I see them. It's matter of using common sense.
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
I personally haven't heard him say that. If he did say that, that is his own personal opinion and as distasteful as it may be, he has a right to say that.
[
] [
] [
]
PLEEEEASE tell me that was a joke. Please. When Ann Coulter jokes about killing liberals, about "ragheads" and about assassinating President Clinton, you don't think that causes dissension?
Again, I haven't heard her say those things either. But, if she did, it's her personal opinion which she is entitled to.
It doesn't cause dissension when Michael Savage says: "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see how do you like that? a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it!"
All racism is wrong period.
So you agree that Michael Savage is wrong, yet he doesn't cause dissension with his vicious racist rants?
See my comment above.
I'm just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
Know what I think? I think you're angry at Wright because he has the temerity to make you feel guilty about things you'd rather keep covered up. It makes you angry to have to confront unpleasant truths about race in America when you would rather assume that all the bad stuff is well behind us now.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, I feel guilty for nothing. It is for the most part behind us now with the exception of a few knuckleheads who are still living in the 1950's.
it was a white America that has long since died out.
I'm not talking about Jim Crow laws. I'm talking about racism in ge1c84neral, you know, the kind which may have cost Obama 6 percentage points in the general election. The kind that Michael Savage spouts that you feel doesn't cause dissension. Tell me what you make of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-ameri ca
What I make of it, is that it's a poll, so what? He won the election, is that not proof enough that we aren't as racially divided as we once were? Personally, my vote had nothing to do with his skin color. Nor, was my voting for McCain based on skin color. I didn't care for either of them so I voted for the lesser of the two evils.
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Again, I'm not going to take the time to go over your past posts atm, but I'll ask this instead. Do you think that Stanley has any business making authoritative pronouncements on economic affairs to his congregation, (some of whom are very credulous, deferential people)?
It depends on what statement you're referring to.
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
There's something to "evade" if you let me answer the question for YOU.
Thank you for your opinion.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(March 14, 2009 08:06 AM)
The truth, is that some verses are easily interpreted and others aren't. Some verses are nothing more than the recounting of an event whereas others are not and usually have a much deeper meaning.
Good, we're making progress. In the past you
did
argue that the scriptures were all self-evident to those who have faith.
For me, I know them when I see them. It's matter of using common sense.
So the millions of Christians around the world and throughout history who interpret scripture differently are devoid of common sense? How unfortunate for them.
he has a right to say that.
That's not what we're discussing and you know it.
Why is it so easy for you to call Wright a "hate speech" provocateur but not Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Why is it so easy for you to observe that Wright "causes dissension" but so difficult for you to recognize that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, with their exponentially bigger "megaphones," have caused far more dissension?
The rest of your post provides the usual slim pickings, so I'll end here. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 10:28 AM)
Good, we're making progress. In the past you did argue that the scriptures were all self-evident to those who have faith.
We're not making "progress&b68quot; because I'm not changing what I have said all along. I have said all along that [some] verses are in essence self-evident in their meaning while others aren't. By that, what I mean, is that the Holy Spirit isn't really necessary to interpret the meaning of [some] verses. Meaning, that even unsaved people can understand the meaning behind the verse. An example of a verse like that, would be John 3:16. There is no spiritual discernment required to comprehend the meaning of that verse because it is self explanatory.
So the millions of Christians around the world and throughout history who interpret scripture differently are devoid of common sense? How unfortunate for them.
How on Earth did you get that out of what I said?
That's not what we're discussing and you know it. Why is it so easy for you to call Wright a "hate speech" provocateur but not Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Why is it so easy for you to observe that Wright "causes dissension" but so difficult for you to recognize that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, with their exponentially bigger "megaphones," have caused far more dissension?
He is a pastor, while they are entertainers. He is supposedly charged with teaching and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a message of love and inclusion but instead, Wright chooses to provoke hatred from the pulpit. And don't even try to say he doesn't do that because even Obama eventually denounced him and separated himself from him due to his hate speech. It took him 17 years to do it but eventually he did. Although, I suspect it was only because he saw his chances of becoming president start to slip away.
The rest of your post provides the usual slim pickings, so I'll end here.
That's wise of you to concede on those points.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
makkabee — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 03:08 PM)
Entertainers? No no no. They present themselves as political commentators, serious molders of public thought and political opinion. You're making excuses for them while c1c84ondemning Reverend Wright. Why the double standard?
Also, you're factually inaccurate about the people Wright complained about being long dead. Oh, some of them are the ones who passed the laws establishing slavery, the ones who set up the internment camps, etc. Plenty of them aren't though. Lots of survivors of the KKK's terrorist war against integration and civil rights are still alive and kicking. Lots of people who fanned racial fears to get into office are still around, and quite a few of them are still in office.
And plenty of Wrights complaints aren't historical, they're about things still happening today. The building new prisons while the school system withers is still happeining, for instance. White cops are still beating, even shooting, unarmed blacks and not going to jail for it. Wright's point is that racist activity today is a continuation of the centuries of racist activity that have marred our history. He can't and shouldn't "get over it" because it's not "over" yet. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 03:21 PM)
Oh please!! Get over it!! A black man is now in the White House, the state sponsored repression is over. That's not to say there aren't racist people however because there clearly are. However, for the most part, they're on the fringes of society. It's people like Wright and Cone who exacerbate racial tensions.
As for Coulter, Savage and the others, they're entertainers, they aren't pastors, which is the point I was making.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 16 years ago(August 25, 2009 09:01 PM)
You might be interested, if not surprised, to find out what a towering hypocrite whitese7en is. On the one hand he condemns Rev. Wright, on the other he is a follower of the Rev. Charles Stanley who, some years ago, favored sending missionaries alongside US troops in Iraq. Said Stanley: "God favors war for divine reasons and sometimes uses it to accomplish his will."
-
whitese7en — 16 years ago(January 12, 2010 08:36 PM)
Yes, that's because Rev Wright, IMHO, is a racist, whereas Dr. Charles Stanley, isn't.
How and in what universe, is that hypocritical?
God does use war to accomplish His will.
That is, when His will is to either punish wickedness, eradicate evil or protect His people.
As for this comment of yours, "favored sending missionaries alongside US troops in Iraq", where did you get that from? Can you cite a reference?
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening!