Typical White Person?
3-26-2008
From the creators of "Grandma got ran over by a raindeer comes the new classic. Barack's Grandmother got ran over by her cowardly grandson. At some point I might feel sorry for Barack Obama's unfortunate ability to stick his foot in his mouth over and over again. He's done it so many times lately, I guess he really does have "soul" or least a taste of it. Let this be another painful lesson to Obama supporters. Just because he can recite a written speech well doesn't mean Obama can think on the fly when confronted or asked tough questions in an interview as just witnessed. If John McCain would have said in an interview that Barrack Obama was a "typical black person", his campaign would be over almost overnight no ifs, ands or buts about it. He would have had to issue 10,000 apologies to Al Sharpton,Jesse Jackson the NAACP etc. McCain would be front page news for the next few months leading up the election. So why hasn't Barack gotten the same treatment for referring to his own grandmother as a "typical white person". It's wrong to stereotype any group of people black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. So what Obama did was very closed minded of a person running for a position that is suppose to represent all the different races in this country.
From the creators of "Grandma got ran over by a raindeer comes the new classic. Barack's Grandmother got ran over by her cowardly grandson. At some point I might feel sorry for Barack Obama's unfortunate ability to stick his foot in his mouth over and over again. He's done it so many times lately, I guess he really does have "soul" or least a taste of it. Let this be another painful lesson to Obama supporters. Just because he can recite a written speech well doesn't mean Obama can think on the fly when confronted or asked tough questions in an interview as just witnessed. If John McCain would have said in an interview that Barrack Obama was a "typical black person", his campaign would be over almost overnight no ifs, ands or buts about it. He would have had to issue 10,000 apologies to Al Sharpton,Jesse Jackson the NAACP etc. McCain would be front page news for the next few months leading up the election. So why hasn't Barack gotten the same treatment for referring to his own grandmother as a "typical white person". It's wrong to stereotype any group of people black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. So what Obama did was very closed minded of a person running for a position that is suppose to represent all the different races in this country.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 9:19 PM
32 Comments:
I will say this. A person's church has a major influence on people for the most part. It was pretty evident by the speech he made that his whole perspective was influenced by that pastor. I came to this conclusion when he implied that his church was typical of black churches when nothing could be further from the truth. I realized that Trinity is probably the only church he has ever been in. Yes I'm cutting him a little slack here. You can tell the type of church people attend if you listen to them long enough.
The fact that he would refer to his grandmother as a typical white woman told me everything. As much as he has tried to get past race he is as entrenched by it as most people.
I will be glad when he will be forced to answer real questions. We will really see who he is, not this sweet picture that his campaign has tried to paint. I'm sure that this process will continue to receive help from the Clintons. The Republicans have not had to do a thing:)
What?! Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don't speak for you, Pamela or me? One of the reasons that White people who may say something dumb like Duane "Dog" Chapman or Don Imus is that they keep going to Jesse and Al. If people would stand up to them or not back down off of a statement that would not be empowered.
RB says; "So why hasn't Barack gotten the same treatment for referring to his own grandmother as a "typical white person". It's wrong to stereotype any group of people black, white, Asian, or Hispanic. So what Obama did was very closed minded of a person running for a position that is suppose to represent all the different races in this country."
You're taking this thing far too seriously...from the ridiculous to the sublime.
On the previous thread I placed a link to a clip from FOX and Friends where Chris Wallace took the host's to task for not contextualizing Obama's comments. There are two reasons Wallace did this, which I'll get to them a moment.
RB refers to Obama as "close minded".
Let's say, hypothetically, you and I are close associates with the same political and social view's.
In an impromptu interview, I referred to you as a "typical" black conservative, what would you think I meant?
If asked, would your response be "he's close-minded."
I don't think so....
If you were not sure what was meant, I believe that you would [more than likely] "ask." And seeing that we have similar political and social views, you would be satisfied with the explanation.
As for Chris Wallace, his first intention was to shed light on the context of Obama's remark. Obama had previously said of his grandmother;
"a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Being that this is "his" grandmother, the one who raised him, he would know better than anyone else. Obama's grandmother is in her 80's. She grew up in the pre-civil-rights era. For her time and era, her attitude was indeed "typical".
I believe Wallace was also attempting to caution them by labeling the remark as racist. If Obama get's the Democratic nomination, race will certainly become a hotbed issue. Without some kind of regulation from the Federal Election Commission, right-wing leaning 527's will use the "typical white person", tie it to the Rev. Wright story, and attempt to paint Obama as a racist.
I will go as far to say that some of these 527's will plant covert, (and possibly overt) racist messages in their ads, only to have the right-wing media pundits justify the ads by saying, "Obama said this, or that, and his Reverend is a racist".
I always try to treat folks with civility and courtesy. It takes an effort on the other person to gain my respect. Stereotyping gets us nowhere.
Having served with the USMC in 'Nam I had the pleasure to be with all types of folks and we had to trust each other, or maybe end up in a body bag.
The problem as I see it, being a WASB (White American Southern Baptist) is those that profit by keeping things stirred up.
Those who measure a man by the color of their skin are fools and are missing some fine encounters.
Tom
Some consider the late Francis Schaeffer as the "father" of the religious right movement in the U.S. Yet you might be suprised by what his son has to say about the Obama/Wright contoversy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
Hmmmmm? I guess it's okay (after all) to have an association with pastor/theologian with radical and questionable views...
if you're a republican!
I happened to take a college course that was partially based on Francis Shaffer's. I agree that he was very hard on sin issues, especially abortion. He did make analogies to Hitler's policies when dealing with abortion. I paid attention to him a lot since I took his course in college. He has been dead for quite a while. The hot button issue was abortion in those days because it had just become legal not long before I went to college. He had a right, just like his son, to speak out against things that they disagreed with. Jeremiah Wright has every right to speak out against policies he does not agree with. That is the beauty of our country. However to compare Francis Schaffer to Jeremiah Wright is comparing apples to oranges.
There is one major difference in Francis Schaffer and Jeremiah Wright. From what I can tell Schaffer had a heart for God and was trying his best to follow the Bible, which is the basis of the Christian faith. Francis Schaffer never publically made a racial distinction in his Christian walk. He never accused our country of things that were not proven to be true. He stuck to speaking out about things that everyone knew were true.
It is clear that the emphasis of Jeremiah Wright is not the gospel as defined in the Bible. The original web page of the church that I read emaphasized being black over being Christlike. Francin Schaffer never did that I know of. I made my decision about the church just from the web site years ago. I did not need the recent media to make my decision. His own web page exposed what I'm seeing now. He has had plenty of time to check and see if our government is shipping drugs to black neighborhoods. If he had renounced that statement those in the media that support Obama (just about everyone at this point)and/or the church would have published that fact by now. He was willing to make statements as such in order to inflame and bring more ignorant people into his church FOR MONEY.
Now he is cancelling speeches for security reasons. Jesus was not afraid to speak out the truth. If he really believes in what he is saying then he should stand by his convictions and speak. There is a reason the man is making those statements. It is pretty evident that his motivation is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or else he would not be running.
Again to compare Francis Schaffer with Jeremiah Wright is like comparing apples to oranges. They are not of the same breed. Frank Schaffer is race baiting.
pamela"I came to this conclusion when he implied that his church was typical of black churches when nothing could be further from the truth."
A lot of blacks that go about their day with massive chips on their shoulders when it comes to the topic of race will 9 out 10 say they are a "Christian" person. I don't believe all churches with mostly black congregations subscribe to the garabage like Trinity does Pamela, however I believe there are many out there that does. For Obama to say that most black churches are like Trinity is actually saying that all of the pastors in those black churches are like Jerimah Wright. If that is truly what he believes then he should come out and speak out against ALL BLACK PASTORS then like he did with Wright. He didn't realize that he just lumped all black pastors into one group with one mindset. I guess Obama doesn't believe in individualism or group stereotypes.
P Allen"Some consider the late Francis Schaeffer as the "father" of the religious right movement in the U.S. Yet you might be suprised by what his son has to say about the Obama/Wright contoversy"
Notice the word "LATE" Allen. That means in human terms being "dead", "deseased" not living etc. Next time try to draw a comparrasion with somestill alive Allen lol. Liberals are the ones saying don't judge Obama by his 20 year friendship with Jerimah Wright, and look at what you are doing Allen. You are doing the exact same thing that other libs are doing. So if you want to try and talk about "hypocrisy", cry me a river next time lol.
livfreerdie"I always try to treat folks with civility and courtesy. It takes an effort on the other person to gain my respect. Stereotyping gets us nowhere."
So true livfreerdie. Some stereotypes are warranted only when the facts are so overwhelming that without and equally powerful counter arguement based on facts, it becomes fact. I try to treat people as individuals, It makes sense to do that. I've debated white liberals in chatrooms and as soon as they find out that I am black they will say something like "I can't dunk a basketball". I guess in their mindset only a black person who is liberal can play basketball? Then again I wonder why would they "assume" that all blacks like basketball in the first place?
livfreerdie"Having served with the USMC in 'Nam I had the pleasure to be with all types of folks and we had to trust each other, or maybe end up in a body bag"
People from all walks of life working together to accomplish a goal. In your case and your fellow soliders case it was surviving.
Thank you for your service livfreerdie by the way.
livfreerdie"Those who measure a man by the color of their skin are fools and are missing some fine encounters."
I definetely agree. I have a very diverse group of friends, and I believe my life has been enhanced because of it. I think that could be the main reason why I don't have a closed minded viewpoint when it comes to race.
livfreerdie"The problem as I see it, being a WASB (White American Southern Baptist) is those that profit by keeping things stirred up."
If they are stirring things up, I haven't heard about. If they are, I would like to know about. In myb book wrong is wrong.
Pamela says; "However to compare Francis Schaffer to Jeremiah Wright is comparing apples to oranges."
Well, you'll have to explain that to Schaeffers son...
I'm going to take his personal knowledge of his father for what it's worth. After all, they are his apples...
In his book "Crazy For God" Frank writes;
About his fathers close associates-
"In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement."
His fathers solution to legalized abortion in the U.S.-
If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.
His fathers idea's on God's punishment for America's sacrilege-
It's no good to be a member of the elect if the rest of the nation is doing just fine, so of course the religious right must root against America, must hope and pray for the End Times slaughter of most of their fellow citizens
Hmmmmmm? Is'nt that the exact same sentiments of a group called "Al Qaeda?"
RB mutters; "Notice the word "LATE" Allen. That means in human terms being "dead", "deseased" not living etc. Next time try to draw a comparrasion with somestill alive Allen lol."
So is Martin Luther King, Ghandi, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and on and on... Yet, these and many more "dead" favorites draws comparisons, commemorations and are widely used as examples to mold future generations.
Come on Tyrone, that wasn't even a "worthy" attempt in an honest debate. You know darn well that when a person with the stature of a Francis Schaeffer die's, his ideas, statements, writings, accomplishments and legacy lives on.
Thomas Jefferson and a few other dead guys wrote and stated an lot of things. Over the years there has been a lot of comparisons and references to those writings. Should they be ignored?
Did "Reagan Conservatism" die with Ronald Reagan? If it did, there's no need to mention Reagan's name ever again.
RB says; "You are doing the exact same thing that other libs are doing. So if you want to try and talk about "hypocrisy", cry me a river next time lol.
Wrong...I'm doing the exact same thing conservatives are doing! You are a conservative, right? You did say that Obama should be held accountable for associating with Rev. Wright, right?
Francis Schaeffer was a "conservative" by all accounts. He was a pastor/theologian. He had associations with elected Republican officials. He wrote and made statements that amount to the same as Rev. Wrights. (his own son says so!!! As I said, who would know him better?)
Scheaffer started a movement that is still active to this day by the way of, Covenant Theological Seminary, The Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation in Gryon, Switzerland, his writings in "The Christian Manifesto" and Christian Right leaders Tim Lahale and Randell Terry.
Now, should conservatives denounce and repudiate Francis Schaeffer and all those who follow his teachings. NO!! That's not fair game. People can believe what ever they want.
Should Republican "political" candidates denounce the Christian Right and those who follow the teachings. YES! That's fair game politically. If a church has views that are counter to American law, or preaches destruction of America in any form, or any reason, the church and it followers can be attacked politically by counter forces.
"Some consider the late Francis Schaeffer as the "father" of the religious right movement in the U.S. Yet you might be suprised by what his son has to say about the Obama/Wright contoversy."
A little background is in order since you wished to use Franky. Franky has some sort of hate for his parents, in his rantings since he became Eastern Orthodoxy, and his dishonoring of his Protestant (Calvinistic) parents not only offended Protestants, but many fellow Eastern Orthodoxs. You won't get much credibility citing the likes of Franky Schaeffer among evangelicals.
Thuyen Tran says: "Franky has some sort of hate for his parents, in his rantings since he became Eastern Orthodoxy, and his dishonoring of his Protestant (Calvinistic) parents not only offended Protestants, but many fellow Eastern Orthodoxs."
Tran, I haven't seen or read anything where he states that he "hated" his parents. Although it is quite obvious that he vehemently disagrees with, and questions his former churches teachings.
Tran says; "You won't get much credibility citing the likes of Franky Schaeffer among evangelicals."
Let's keep in mind that the elder Schaeffer did write, and preach certain "radical" views. Frank merely point's out these views are no different than Barak Obama's "spiritual" advisor views.
I don't think Obama's repudiation of Wrights remarks has lessened his credibility with those in his church. Granted, Obama doesn't go as far as "dis-owning" his church as Frank does. But if Obama did dis-own his church, would you see it as credibility lost, or credibility gained? The answer depends on which side of the isle you're on....
Frank is rightfully noting a "double standard" that conservatives live by.
He rightfully questions the blatant hypocrisy of "not" holding republican politicians to the fire for associations with "conservative" radical preachers. Yet, they attack a Democrat/liberal preacher for having the same views!
"Tran, I haven't seen or read anything where he states that he "hated" his parents. Although it is quite obvious that he vehemently disagrees with, and questions his former churches teachings."
Then you don't know much about Franky Schaeffer. Mor much about how evangelicals feel about him in general. He is not considered honest by evangelicals nor honoring to God or parents alike in his rantings against others, parents included.
Some links that highlight the disgust towards him about how he publically gossiped about his parents, even while his mom was still alive, in pretty terrible manner:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/002/1.32.html
http://walkingtogether.typepad.com/walking_together/2007/11/an-open-letter-.html
"Let's keep in mind that the elder Schaeffer did write, and preach certain "radical" views. Frank merely point's out these views are no different than Barak Obama's "spiritual" advisor views."
Pamnela alresdy rebutted that nonsense. Does Francis Schaeffer preach a white identity movement equivalent to Obama's church? No. Does he attack other races that are not white the way Obama's pastor has attacked non-black races? No. Yes, he does point out its sins. But he does not stoop to making up things like America conspired to cause AIDS on a certain race. Nor going the road of Godhatesfags churches being insenitive to victims (and their families) of tragedies. That is the level Wright stoop to when he said what he did about 9/11.
Let me address Franky's assertions:
"The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed."
Franky equate desire to bear arms to limit government power with the rantings of Obama's pastor Wright as if they are equivolent- which undermines his own position there. People who founded this country had the rights to bear arm amendment to limit the power of the government they themselves set up. Not even close there Franky.
"My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany."
I love America, but abortion is alot worse than the Holocaust. It killed more than just one race. It killed those who are the ones who can't defend themselves the most, and killed far more than the Holocaust of Hitler and Stalin purges combined.
That is not some conspiracy nut. It is fact.
We are opposed to abortion for that reason. We do believe God will punish this country for that. Do we wish it? No. We wish our country would repent and be reconciled to God. We love our country, since it is where we can enjoy our religious and political freedoms.
Maybe, a little context on what evangelicals tbink will help.
And the context of Franky despising all things evangelical heritage of his parents also help here, too. I don't take what he says as gospel.
And here is proof that Franky Schaeffer horrible distorted his own parents in the site you linked Allen via selective quotations. And it is not an evangelical Protestant blog, but a Catholic blog that rebutted Franky here!
http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/03/frank-schaeffer-dishonors-his-father.html
Via Vox Nova's resident Obama-devotee (Gerald Campbell) we hear the latest screed by disgruntled, wayward son Frankie Schaeffer against his father, the late, great Evangelical apologist Francis Schaeffer, entitled Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero (Huffington Post March 16, 2008):
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. . . . Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.
Perhaps, perhaps not -- Frankie brings before the Huffington court "a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto":
If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.
[and]
There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...
There's a third passage Frankie offers in which his dad considers parallels between public schools in the United States and the Soviet Union where "the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively" and where "all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden" -- but I think Francis' illustration is hardly objectionable and perhaps even true, depending on degree to which one's local public school is ruled by secularism.
So let's focus on those two passages where Frankie suggests his dad advocates the "violent overthrow" of the United States.
It helps to read the passages in context, and this can be done simply by the wonderous power of Google. (Frankie's excerpts will be in red) -- pages 117-118:
There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues of flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution.
[...]
A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from SS troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and had no right to make any demands.
This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. [...] Christians must come to the children's defense, and must come to the defense of human life as such. The defense should be carried out on at least four fronts:
First, we should aggressively support a human life bill or a constitutional amendment protecting unborn children.
Second, we must enter the courts seeking to overturn the Supreme Court's abortion decision.
Third, legal and political action should be taken against hospitals and abortion clinics that perform abortions. [...]
Francis Schaeffer goes on to advocate putting pressure on institutions that provide abortions by introducing legislation cutting off taxpayer funding. He also supports non-violent civil disobedience and picketing of the abortion clinics (I believe this would be the "fourth" front).
Little wonder, that such proposals would appeal to Christian conservatives.
The next sentence is contained in a separate chapter:
It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation to such a tyrannical usurping of power. [p. 131]
The appropriate response entails not just the pursuit of political and legal actions and the use of mere words, but the provision of Christian alternatives:
Those who have responsibility as Christians, as they live under Scripture, must not only take the necessarily legal and political stands, but must practice all the possible Christian alternatives simultaneously with taking stands politically and legally. . . . [to] show that there are Christian alternatives. In Whatever Happened to the Human Race we stressed this in regard to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia of the old -- that Christians must not only speak and fight against these things, bu then must provide the Christian alternative. [p. 133]
With respect to abortion, Francis cites as a positive example the establishment of crisis pregnancy centers. He goes on to criticize as utopian those who provide ONLY the alternatives and neglect to take the appropriate legal and political measures -- and likewise believes it wrong and incomplete to pursue political-legal policy without adopting Christian alternatives.
Again, here is the second quote, in context:
“If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force, and if there is a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, then at a certain point the use of force is justifiable. We should recognize, however, that overreaction can too easily become the ugly horror of sheer violence. [p. 106]
What kind of force is Francis Schaeffer envisioning, then, to counter the forces of secularism and the culture of death?
At this point in history, protest is the most viable alternative. … after all the normal constitutional means of protest have been exhausted, then what could be done? At some point, Christians could refuse to pay some portion of their tax money. Of course, this would mean a trial. Such a move would have to mean the individual’s choice under God. Happily, at the present time the Hyde amendment has removed the use of national tax money for abortions, but that does not change the possibilty that in some cases such a protest would be the only way to be heard. One can think of, for example, tax money going to Planned Parenthood . . .
Francis Schaeffer goes to advocate resisting entanglement and interference with the secular state through home-schooling or private [religious?] schooling.
Guess which party leans on the side of home-schooling and vouchers for private schooling?
* * *
To be sure, Francis meditates on that which compelled our founding fathers to revolt against the British ("the people, if they find their basic rights systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it") and what might constitute "the bottom line" for Christians as well:
"If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been put in the place of the Living God, because then you are to obey it even when it tells you in its own way to worship Caesar. And that point is exactly where the early Christians performed their own acts of civil disobedience even where it costs them their own lives. [p. 130]
But I think this is a far cry from the caricature of his father that Frankie provides, cobbled together from a straw man of quotations. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether those criticizing Jeremiah Wright are pursuing a "double standard."
"I don't think Obama's repudiation of Wrights remarks has lessened his credibility with those in his church. Granted, Obama doesn't go as far as "dis-owning" his church as Frank does. But if Obama did dis-own his church, would you see it as credibility lost, or credibility gained? The answer depends on which side of the isle you're on...."
I think he would have lost more credibility if he has disowned his church. But he still lost some by acting like he didn't know what his pastor taught when he was there for 20 years on certain issues. He would have better off saying he disagreed with his pastor on this, but agreed on other issues that are not as inflammatory (if he wanted to spin things without looking like a spin). Or simply tell the truth, though that might cost him an election.
"Frank is rightfully noting a "double standard" that conservatives live by."
Rightfully, if he is telling the truth about what his parents believe, which he is not.
Rightfully, if he is telling the truth about what conservatives believe, which he is not.
And what Republican conservatives went to a church that preached the equivolent to Obama's pastor, and did so for 20 years?
And please don't parrot Franky (who has less than zero credibility). Pamela is right- Franky is race baiting, given, even in his absurd and dishonest spin on his parents' writings, he can't come up with pompous attacks on other races.
And no conservative ever take another to task for associating himself, even remotely with a group or church that might be seen as racist (just or not)?
Oh, I do recall Bill O'Reilly (who you claim to be conservative) took two Republicans to task for claiming that they didn't know anything about League of the South. He said they got to know, if they are going to speak there, and went on to say don't give us we don't know, and called it the ridiculous item of the day. That was btw at the time of the Clinton impeachment, too. Joe Scarborough regularly went after Republicans and Democrats alike, and he is Republican.
Pamela,
I can almost understand the anger he might have even as a man of God in the pulpit, if he had lived through the civil rights era at least towards whites who mistreated him and those he knew because of the color of their skin.
He is still human, and thus like the rest of us, a sinner who falls short of the glory of God. Pastors have their blind spots, too, or otherwise, they would be infallible.
Does not justify his words though. And though pastors are not immuned to errors or to blind spots, they are still at least biblically held to a higher standard.
What troubles me about the reverend Wright are his anti-semitic remarks, more so than his remarks about America as much as offensive as he said was.
Of all the races that can relate to the plights of blacks, and vice versa, that would be the Jews. Why so much hatred for them?
And the conspiracy nutjobs he come up with pale in comparison to the insensitivity he displayed towards those killed in 9/11, as well as towards their families.
If he don't like being a victim as he was in the past back in the 60s, don't advocate or condone others being victimized. A lesson it looks like he never learned.
Tran states;"Does Francis Schaeffer preach a white identity movement equivalent to Obama's church? No. Does he attack other races that are not white the way Obama's pastor has attacked non-black races?"
The following is a direct quote from your post;
"It helps to read the passages in context"
If context matters in the case of Francis Schaeffer, shouldn't you also look at the context of Rev. Wrights words? Again, I don't agree with everything Rev. Wright says, and neither do I agree with everything either of the Schaeffers preach, said or wrote.
All of this mess is political and divisive to the core. As I stated earlier, an opinion is formed from "which side of the isle you're on"!
Francis Schaeffer writes;"But when all avenues of flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate."
Okay, let's look at "context"!
Abortion is legal in the U.S. Even though some attempt to convince us that it's not the individual choice (of the woman), the facts are that a woman can choose (however irrational it may seem) to ingest a solution to abort a pregnancy, fall down a flight of steps or even jump off a bridge.
As for the medically sanctioned abortion, the society we live in has given her that right.
It is here where rationality becomes more "bias" than fair.
My first question is, at what point are "all avenues of flight and protest closed" and who will decide? What kind of "defensive force" would you use on a society that allows abortion?
Imagine if Dr. King used those exact same words in the 1950's and 60's. What context would have applied during that era?
The fact is that only Schaeffer (the elder) could explain his ideas! You and I can "contextualize" all day and night and we both could come up with incorrect answers. I am moved to take Franks point of view because I think he would know his father best. Yet, who knows? Frank could be a loon himself! After all, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!
Allen,
I don't really have a problem with Wright if he says America should be condemned for racial injustices if it does not repent. What I do have a problem is him making things up to support his thesis. Like claims white America passed off drugs to blacks. Or conspired to cause them to have AIDS. Or making remarks like white Romans killed black Jesus, as if the Bible mentioned colors of either one, or as if race is an issue as to why Jesus died on the cross. (But if one wants to claim Jesus was black, then one can't ignore certain members of those of His race also called for His death and demanded that out of the "white Romans," something Wright conveniently ignored).
What I do have a problem is Wright is being gleeful about it when America is punished in his eyes as in 9/11. Prophets warned of condemnations a nation they lived in faced but they take NO JOY IN IT.
Wright relied on dishonest racial bait tactics. Not words of a true prophet. Prophets don't resort to lies to get point. Prophets don't resort to appealing to racial hatred as Wright did.
And before anyone say I use this issue to deny Wright is saved, that person would be wrong.
I don't know Wright. It is not my place to decide whether he is saved or not. He might have a blind spot in his life, but could still be saved by simply having faith in Christ, but still have sins in his life he struggled with to end of his life.
My point is the things he said need to be challenged.
And enabling him like Franky did serves no one any good.
Your attempt to try to make abortion as legal as proof to paint Francis Schaeffer (Franky's father) in same light as Wright don't washed. Francis don't resort to making up lies to stir up hatred against others. That is a big difference. Nor does Francis advocate hate for others either. Another big difference.
And another reason why your analogy of abortion being legal don't work is that SLAVERY was legal once.
And guess what tactics many white- and black- abolitionists used on that. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Same sort of stuff Schaeffer spoke of.
And King did resort to CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE because the law was AGAINST him in his day.
Being legal does not make right.
Finally, EVERYONE knows abortion goes on. NO one but loons like Wright believe AIDs is some white conspiracy against blacks.
"I am moved to take Franks point of view because I think he would know his father best. Yet, who knows? Frank could be a loon himself! After all, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree!"
And that is why I moved to continue to say you have zero credibility to cite Franky.
Franky's claims have been shown time and time to be untrue or exaggerated.
This issue with Obama is not the first time he maligned his parents.
He did it to him while his mom was still alive. The man has no shame whatsoever.
I don't consider Francis to be a loon at. For those who support his son and his continual defaming of his own parents the way he did, even when alot of what he said about them has been exposed, even by non-evangelicals as false or exaggerated, that is a whole different story.
Let me repeat one thing over and over- the same arguments you use for abortion as a right based on it being legal and right of power one human being over another are exact same kind of arguments used to support slavery. Think about it.
Abortion is even worse than slavery. Abortion involved actual murder, of the ultimately defenseless!
I suggest those who say Francis Schaeffer is nutty for his views on law and civil disobedience read stuff by John Locke and company.
Tran coughs up;"Let me repeat one thing over and over- the same arguments you use for abortion as a right based on it being legal and right of power one human being over another are exact same kind of arguments used to support slavery. Think about it."
Twisted...totally twisted thinking!
Equating slavery to abortion shows a lack of respect for those that were enslaved. Slavery and abortion falls on two distinct and separate ends of the human experience.
What you're saying (and I really believe that you don't realize what you're saying/doing)is "if abortion is okay, then so is slavery!"
Noted author and poet David Omowale wrote;
"Many women on slave plantations aborted their fetuses for various reasons – some did not want to give birth to children that could be separated from them or made to suffer the indignities of slavery; others were impregnated by rape and did not want to bear the child of the enslavers"
My point here is to ask, which did these women consider to be "more evil"? Abortion or slavery? An enslaved woman had no choice when being knocked senseless and brutally raped. Bearing a child was the only thing in life which she had control of.
The point I have to tell you, and those who think like you ("over and over")is that abortion is "a woman's choice"!
Slaves had no choice. Frankly, it's an insult and a slap in the face of those who recognize the past, and the horrors of American slavery.
I understand your fervor and passion for the unborn. The conscientiousness and grace are indeed noble. Yet, you belittle yourself and your argument by using such a comparison. The argument that slavery and abortion are somehow "kin", is merely a low-brow act of desperation.
"Twisted...totally twisted thinking!
Equating slavery to abortion shows a lack of respect for those that were enslaved. Slavery and abortion falls on two distinct and separate ends of the human experience."
Oh really murdering 50-60 million people who can't defend themselves in the extreme (unborn) is less heinous than enslaving people? What is the whole point of speaking of freeing slaves and liberty for them if they are denied life in the first place?
Life is the mother of all rights, including liberty and freedom from slavery!
To say I have disrespect for the enslaved is plain idiotic.
More like you have little to zero respect for human life, especially the defenseless.
My opposition to Southern slavery is an EXTENSION of my respect for HUMAN LIFE. Slavery comes from the same MINDSET as abortionists- LACK OF RESPECT for human life and fellow man.
"The point I have to tell you, and those who think like you ("over and over")is that abortion is "a woman's choice"!
Just like the slaveowners argued they have the right to choose to enslave others, you argue women have the right to be a party of the KILLING OF OTHERS, which in this case is their unborn children.
"Slaves had no choice. Frankly, it's an insult and a slap in the face of those who recognize the past, and the horrors of American slavery."
Slaves have no choice. NEITHER DOES THE UNBORN.
You are basically giving a class of human beings (women) ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do away with another class of human beings (the unborn).
Just as those who are slaveowners (who were white) were given rights to own another class of human beings (who were blacks or whatever.
And let's not forget that Americans did also ENSLAVED Asians. Granted to a much lesser extent than they did blacks. But Asians built the railroads in the North and West while the Civil War was going on over slavery.
And guess what? There are Jewish believers who see abortion as far worse than the Holocaust, and Jews suffered alot worse and far more extensively through history than blacks did. Should they be accused of slapping victims of Holocaust and other forms of murderous antisemitism through the centuries?
"I understand your fervor and passion for the unborn. The conscientiousness and grace are indeed noble. Yet, you belittle yourself and your argument by using such a comparison. The argument that slavery and abortion are somehow "kin", is merely a low-brow act of desperation."
You belittle yourself when you say murdering tens of millions of unborn children is trivial compared to slavery.
Look, Asians have been enslaved through history. Japanese, French, Chinese, etc., did it to those of my Vietnamese blood.
So should I by your logic say that is worse than murdering unborn children?
No, murder is more heinous than enslaving another human being.
It comes from the same category of denying real human status to another human being/
That is PRECISELY what you just did when you trivialize MURDER the way you have here.
What is a low-brow act of desperation is you refusing to actually deal with my point that abortion is murder and deal with that.
Insulting me rather than actually dealing with shows the lack of high moral ground liberals like yourself have.
What Southern slavery and abortion have in common:
1) Denial of full human status to other human beings
2) Absolute right of one class of human being to do as they pleased with another class of human beings
3) Those who are victimed, whether the aborted or the enslaved, have NO CHOICE in the matter.
Tyrone,
What's your take on this? Allen accused me of making mockery of those who were enslaved for what I said on abortion.
Tran says;"What's your take on this? Allen accused me of making mockery of those who were enslaved for what I said on abortion."
I'm accusing you of using slavery as a "crutch" for you argument against abortion. Your idea that the two are the same, is the impetus for the mockery.
During slavery many women aborted pregancies various reasons, including not wanting to bring a child into the life of slavery. These women had a choice, and chose to abort their child.
Today, free women throughout this country still have that choice.
There is one sure way to end all abortion in this country. That would be to "enslave" all women once they become pregnant. Place them under arrest and gaurded 24/7 until the child is born. Anything less draconian could not stop those who seek to end a pregancy.
"I'm accusing you of using slavery as a "crutch" for you argument against abortion. Your idea that the two are the same, is the impetus for the mockery."
I didn't say the same. I say abortion is worse- since abortion is MURDER of the defenseless.
Abortion is more along the lines of the Holocaust, but even WORSE tha the Holocaust. Hitler didn't kill as many as the Holocaust killed, as Tyrone pointed out in a post.
You are forced to compare slaves to women rather than slaves to the unborn as a crutch in order to mock. And you accused me of desperation?
The comparison is between slaves and the unborn.
You sure don't address that.
Do the unborn have a choice when they are KILLED? No.
The fact you resorted to mockery but by hiding behind comparing between slaves as victims of slavery and women who are NOT the victims of abortion (instead od comparing slaves and the true victims of abortion- the MURDERED UNBORN) speaks VOLUMES.
And I didn't use any crutch. I made a historical point.
You DO use the SAME arguments for legalizing abortion that slaveowners do back in the 1800s use for legalizing slavery. That is as if it is an issue of personal choice (of course like you, they ignore the choice of those they VICTIMIZE). And of course, your abortion is legal argument, that you used to accuse those who called for civil obedience of being whackos (abolitionists got called fanatics, too, in their day).
Your problem is with history, not me.
"During slavery many women aborted pregancies various reasons, including not wanting to bring a child into the life of slavery. These women had a choice, and chose to abort their child. "
And does a child have a choice of being killed or not being killed in this case? NO.
"Today, free women throughout this country still have that choice."
And the choice the unborn do NOT have.
"There is one sure way to end all abortion in this country. That would be to "enslave" all women once they become pregnant."
And you call the demand to end abortion enslaving all women?
It is like saying back in the 1800s that the only way to end slavery is to enslave slaveowners.
And guess what? Slaveowners also use similar argument back in that day- they just disguises as an issue of being enslaved by the federal government trying to destroy states' rights.
"Place them under arrest and gaurded 24/7 until the child is born. Anything less draconian could not stop those who seek to end a pregancy."
So your argument is the government have to violate rights of women by holding them into detention so women won't VI0LATE the rights of others?
So I guess using your "sound" logic, then the government should arrest EVERYONE to prevent them from committing ANY form of murder, since anything less draconian won't prevent ANY of us from committing murder.
That is what your "sound logic" amounts to.
"Let me repeat one thing over and over- the same arguments you use for abortion as a right based on it being legal and right of power one human being over another are exact same kind of arguments used to support slavery." (Thuyen Tran)
<
<
There's no question but that Thuyen is right about the comparative morality of abortion and slavery.
PAA pretends that chattel slavery "was some peculiar institution of the Western world."
Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, the Arabic/Zanzibar slave trade was not only far larger in scope, but even more brutal than the Western chattel slavery. In the Arabic world, all males were castrated to bar them from breeding. A wise decision, by a relatively primitive people (that day's "Musselmen" as Jefferson et all called the Muslims) as slaves were indeed, as the Arab slave-traders maintained, relatively "cheap."
But the fact is that BOTH chattel slavery AND abortion are the NORM, the "rule, rather than the exception" in the world today.
Most of sub-Saharan Africa is rife with chattel slavery, so is the Mideast (in both those areas, mostly Muslims enslaving others, but it exists in other forms as well) and huge tracts of Asia still have it to this day, in one of many forms.
It would seem that ONLY the West has eradicated chattel slavery, making America's Founders even more astoundingly ahead of their time than they're often given credit for.
BUT, on the comparison between the two, Thuyen seems absolutely RIGHT!
And I'm a "Nietzschean Conservative," a true "social Darwinist, who believes the free market rids the world of the weak and ensures the advancement of the most intelligent, ambitious and clever...it also ultimately delivers the MOST prosperity to the MOST people.
For THAT reason I support first trimester abortion and oppose abortion once the fetus could survive outside the womb (independent life), acknowledging that even that is an "arbitrary standard."
I make none of the inane, illogical and often imaginary arguments that those on the Left do.
For instance, there is NO DOUBT that "life" (as we understand it) "begins at conception." Once fertilized, that zygote is in every way, a LIVING life. Ergo, abortion IS the taking of a life, a non-independent life, but a life none-the-less.
Non-religious pragmatists, like myself, support first trimester abortion for one primary reason; IF a couple believes they are not ready to raise a child, they are, at that point in time, UNFIT PARENTS, and it is hideous to damn a child to a fate of being raised by unfit or unwilling/unable parents.
That is a nakedly pragmatic argument that, in every way, rationalizes the taking of a life (murder) to avoid what pragmatists (like myself) consider to be even worse ramifications down the line.
But even I, who not only support first trimester abortion, but support MANDATING birth control (and where necessary, abortion) for ALL "wards of the state" - incarcerated felons, the institutionalized mentally and physically handicapped and those dependent on public assistance - do not argue that "abortion isn't killing." There's absolutely no logical way to argue that.
In that regard it can't be argued that "slavery was/IS a worse abomination than abortion."
In fact, abortion (killing) is indeed a far worse an abuse of human life (a TAKING) than is enslaving (denying freedom and autonomy).
I left the Catholic Church at eleven years of age, for a variety of reasons. Before I got into College I'd read Friedrich Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ, which was, in essence, a "Manifesto for social Darwinism" and I accepted that pragmatic worldview almost entirely.
Charity, is, as Nietzsche states, "The curse of Christ," in that it not only bestows sustenance on the weakest and most depraved members of society (encouraging and perpetuating that weakness), BUT it inculcates a sense of ENTITLEMENT among the stupid, the lazy and the non-productive. That sense of entitlement is, in my view, both a blight upon civilization and a barrier to full human advancement.
In short, I support first trimester abortion/killing, for pragmatic reasons. The same sort of pragmatic reasons we support/justify killing during wars, for the death penalty and in self defense.
I respect the views of the Catholic Church which opposes almost all killing, as it believes "ALL life is sacred" – it opposes MOST wars, the death penalty, and supports only non-lethal self-defense, as in its view, “the value of property never trumps the value of a life, even a misguided, criminal life.” There are many other Christians who are also that consistent.
I’m consistent too. I DO NOT believe that life is sacred, so I believe in the efficacy of most wars, prefer lethal self-defense, even when non-lethal means are available (as it’s a more “permanent solution” to an “infestation problem”) and believe that Capital punishment is woefully under-utilized – I support the death penalty for repeat child molesters, drunk and impaired drivers who kill others, etc.
I oppose third trimester abortions and abortion when the fetus/baby could survive outside the womb, because that is clearly the TAKING of a fully formed and INDEPENDENT LIFE (actual and undeniable INFANTICIDE).
I have a little less respect for those who oppose abortion and support things like Capital Punishment, as it too violates the principle of the “Sanctity of all Life,” but at least those folks seem to support “killing those guilty of heinous acts, while opposing the deaths of innocents, BUT I have virtually no respect for those who SUPPORT abortion, even to the point of infanticide (aborting fetuses that could survive outside the womb), while OPPOSING things like Capital Punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes.
That last is the standard “Liberal position,” and it’s typically both ILLOGICAL and MISGUIDED. There is, as usual, absolutely nothing socially redeeming about the Liberal view that lauds the killing of infants (especially those who could survive outside the womb), while wailing and gnashing their teeth over the deaths of sub-human creatures guilty of heinous acts.
The standard Liberal position tends to be made by people who have a difficult time accepting/understanding basic logic, which requires some ideological CONSISTENCY and a lack of understanding history – like the history of the Zanzibar slave trade and the FACT that chattel slavery today EXISTS EVERYWHERE except in the West!
Tran replies;"I didn't say the same. I say abortion is worse- since abortion is MURDER of the defenseless."
Excuse me for assuming so...
The point here is that it is merely "YOU" that think it is worse. Yours is a personal perspective. Which, by the way, is your choice. Still, it doesn't mean you're right!
The slave woman's choice to abort doesn't make abortion worse than being a slave. What was "worse" for these women was to have the child snatched from her breast, never to see the child again and the subsequent peril of a lifetime of bondage.
The fact remains that, from zygote to embryo, to fetus and until the moment the ambilical cord is cut, the female has total control over the life she bears. Once the child leaves the womb and takes it's first breath, anyone willing to feed and care for the child will do.
"The slave woman's choice to abort doesn't make abortion worse than being a slave. What was "worse" for these women was to have the child snatched from her breast, never to see the child again and the subsequent peril of a lifetime of bondage."
Obviously you won't- or worse, yet, can't- deal with the real analogy I was making between slavery and abortion.
Again, the analogy is NOT between woman's choice to have abortion and slaves who have no choice.
But between MURDERED unborn children, who have NO CHOICE, and slaves who have NO CHOICE.
Both the unborn and the slaves got their rights VIOLATED, the former their right to life, the latter their right to liberty.
Deal with the ACTUAL point I was maaking, not couch it behind woman's choice as comparing to slaves have no choice, especially when you are comparing woman, who is victimiser today on abortion, with slave who is a victim, not victimiser.
Compare with victims with victims, not victimser with victim.
Pamela: Now he is cancelling speeches for security reasons. Jesus was not afraid to speak out the truth. If he really believes in what he is saying then he should stand by his convictions and speak. There is a reason the man is making those statements. It is pretty evident that his motivation is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or else he would not be running.
Me: Exactly why those who say he is being a prophet of God in mold of the Bible are insulting our intelligence over that.
Those who were prophets in the Bible went to those who they felt needed to repent of their sins, including ruling authorities. They did it knowing their lives were at risk (legend has it that the prophet Isaiah was cut in half to death at orders of wicked pagan king Manasseh, who later on himself repented of his pagan ways and turned to God at the end of his life).
Wright did it behind the closed doors of his "church." He refused now to speak in public at times, on basis he claimed his life is threatened. It comes off as more attempt to gain sympathy via more race baiting than attempting to be a prophet there.
And of course, prophets in the Bible spoke on things that happened at the time that all knew to be true. Wright relied on conspiracy theories and passed it off as truth. He resorted to attacking a victim of a crime (Natalie Holloway) to complain about racism- classic Al Sharpton tactic there. He slurred whole races, like whites, Jews and Italians. He passed off untruths of history like Romans were Italians today (they were not). He made lewd and sexist remarks on the pulpit. Not what prophets would do in the Bible.
Actually, I have far more respect for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson then I do him. At least these two so-called reverend spoke out publically against what they claim are injustices (even when they are horribly wrong and are race baiting).
The comparisons people make the likes of Wright falls short for these reasons. Falwell at least apologized for his remarks in regards to God's judgment on America, when he went over the line. And even if he had not, he spoke publically beyond his church in calling America to repentance. Falwell, for all his shortcomings (which I have criticized in message boards in the past and to my friends in my private life), at least did love his country and also did not shy away from letting people know how he felt on issues. He did not run.
Post a Comment
<< Home