God bless America vs. God damn America

What a load of sanctimonious horse s**t! If Mr. Steyn had a functioning brain cell in that dense head of his, he would be well aware that a more apt comparison would be between african americans in american and jews in Nazi Germany. Thank God we stopped short of outright extermination (not that there weren't loud voices advocating for such things), but we can match Nazi germany in terms of medical experimentation, forced segregation in squalid conditions, forced economic deprivation, slave labor and the rest. If Mr. Steyn would like to find an example of a Jew who wrote "God Bless the Mother Land" as an ode to Germany during the Nazi rise to power, then fine. However, to compare the children of people who were treated much like Jews in Nazi Germany prior to the invention of concentration camps to an American Jew who suffered "slights" in a place which offered sanctuary from such conditions, is disgusting and reprehensible.

These are Dr. King's words that apparently failed you, FA.

The 11 o'clock hour is the most segregated hour in America." Forty years later, the African American Church community continues to face bomb threats, death threats and their ministers' characters are assassinated because they teach and preach prophetic social concerns for social justice. Sunday is still the most segregated hour in America

Wright's character is being assassinated based on the 30 second snippets of a 30-year career of preaching about social justice and prophetic social concerns. Dr. King's words seem especially appropriate.

May I be so bold as to suggest that if Jeremiah Wight's sermons are to be the subject of analysis, that people take a look at the semron which Senator Obama says most impacted him?

I notice that Sean Hannity, Mark Steyn, and others have not quoted that one, at all.

You can find "Audacity to Hope" here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html#more

Daniel, honestly I'm not sure I can vote for Obama because of some of his liberal policies, if discussion of the issues his candidacy raises can bring us into agreement, well maybe Obama really is the messiah (kidding, kidding). But really, miracles of miracles.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to many white people to fully grasp the damage done to African Americans by our racial history and the pain it continues to cause people. I don't think we have to say, "yes, Rev. Wright is right about America" in order to understand where he's coming from. Besides, if there were another country which had our history of terrorism, oppression, and downright crimes against a segment of their population and then decided they could move on without doing anything to heal or help the victims of such abuse, we would likely look upon them very negatively. We might even understand when that formerly oppressed group used angry rhetoric to denounce their country. But here in America, there just no room for that much compassion. The white folks decided it was time for everyone to move forward, and set the standards for how to do that, so everyone better get in line with what the white folks said. Those who are too injured to do so 100% of the time, will be held accountable for their failures.

Afgh - listen to me! A good conservative Christian woman starting to sound like Rev. Wright! Not. Supposed. To. Think. Such. Things. Must. Turn. Off. Logic.

One more thought...Can Steyn, or even Rod, point to a single instance in Obama's record of speeches or activities which indicates that he holds the angry or racially polarized view that they see Wright espousing.

What has Obama said? What has Obama done, that they find so terribly threatening in thyis regard?

We're not being asked to vote for Jeremiah Wright, any more than we are beoing asked to vote for John Hagee (and I thank God for that!).

I have had pastors with whom I deeply disagreed. I stayed with my church because I had commitments to ministries which I found positive, and to the people there with whom I had deep friendships.

Don, It's not like people were falling all over themselves to address african american concerns and the problems of blacks in American before being turned off by Rev. Wright's rhetoric! geeze.

rebecca: You may have a point. Perhaps Obama can give a speech defending Rev Wright by pointing out that the black experience in America is similar to the Jews' in Nazi Germany, and such "squalid" conditions have called for the somewhat harsh rhetoric.

By all means let's hear what Obama really thinks.

Bob,

#1 : I asked much the same thing and got no response.

#2 & #3 : According to Rod:

I don't want a man who believes the things Barack Obama believes to be president. But I've got to confess, he makes me proud of my country. When's the last time you heard from a politician that made you proud of your country? Here's the speech -- spend the next 17 minutes watching it. Whatever you think of Obama, you won't regret listening to this oratory. How any Democratic voter could choose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is a mystery to me.

I know, I know, it's only a speech. And you don't vote for a candidate solely because he gives a good speech, which is to say, entirely for therapeutic reasons. But if this Obama keeps talking like he does here, he's going to be president.

So I think the answer to your question #3 is: he might win.

Many ideological conservatives believe that the best way to fight in politics is to tear down the other side by any means instead of making a case for one's own side. (Note: that's not a trait confined to conservatives, but we're commenting on a conservative blog, as Rod sometimes reminds us.)

Real waste of good minds, isn't it!?

Meanwhile, this Obama comment on MSNBC's Countdown comes very close to the Checker's speech Rod mentioned:

OLBERMANN: How do you characterize given your long association with him, given the fact that he officiated at the marriage of you and your wife, how do balance this line of what you have to do at this point from a political point of view and from what you have to do from personal point of view relative to these comments and your long history with him? Do you repudiate the man, do you repudiate the comments, do you repudiate both?

OBAMA: No, I would do not repudiate the man. As I said, this is somebody who I have known for 17 years. He helped bring me to Jesus and helped bring me to church. And, you know, he and I have a relationship, he`s like an uncle who has talked to me, not about political things and not about social views, as much as about faith and God and family.

And he`s somebody who is widely respected throughout Chicago and around the country for many of the things that he`s done not only as a pastor but also as a preacher. But I have to say that the comments that have been played are ones that are contrary to what I believe, what I think of this country, the love that I have for this country and, you know, are ones that anger and distress me.

So, you know, I would describe it as a member of your family who does, says something that you really disagree with. They don`t stop being a member of your family, but you have to speak out forcefully on the issue.

Thus spake Obama-the-non-Muslim.

Seriously, why aren't Obama's words quoted by Chuck above enough? I can't understand this obsession while a perfectly good, reasonable, understandable and even admirable explanation has been offered. It is the fact that this sort of thing is ignored, or seen as not good enough which leads me to suspect bad faith on the part of those who want to make Rev. Wright an issue.

[See note at end.]

I was born in the US. My mother was a Holocaust survivor who abandoned her Judaism in favor of raising children who could think for themselves. My father was a convicted war criminal, whose army was accused of collaborating with the Nazis; he and his brethren in arms were later given a blanket amnesty.

I was raised to be a patriot, by two people who experienced firsthand many of the things the founders wanted to prevent or guard against.

I look over the history of the US, and I find a long list of things to be ashamed of, big things done during my lifetime in my name as a citizen of this country, things I would have chosen not to do or to do differently.

I look over the history of the US, and I find a long list of things to be proud of, big things done during my lifetime in my name as a citizen of this country, things I would have liked to have participated in.

I am proud of the longest string of peaceful changes in national government in history.

I am ashamed of the way political campaigns are conducted, and particularly contemptuous of the large number of my fellow citizens whose inertia of silence or acceptance prevents any effort to remedy those shameful things.

I believe that the only real difference between myself and Michelle Obama is that I don't have a spouse running for federal office. I also believe that the treatment afforded her, her husband, Senator Clinton and her husband, belong squarely in that shameful list in the previous paragraph.

Like Rebeccat says, I find the rest of this discussion utter BS.

Note: this entire post is my personal opinion and a small sampling of facts to indicate my motivations. I expect a field day of spin around all of the details I did not include above. Have fun!!

"The thirty second sound bites--wish that much benefit of the doubt was given by Western liberals to a *single* ten second sound bite of the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor."

Hear hear. Public figures get criticized or even lose jobs all the time over single quotes, even slips of the tongue. People laughed Dan Quayle out of public life over "potatoe," after all. And didn't some professor lose his job over "niggardly"? To say that the recent discussion of Wright's words is unusual or some sort of witch-hunt is simply disingenuous.

It's the way politics works: most of the time candidates manage to stick to the script and tell us vague things we want to hear, so we dig around for things they've said or written--or things less careful people they're close to have said or written--to try to find out what they really think. It may not be ideal, but it's normal.

no, no, curmudgeon, Just an angry BLACK man and harsh things said. That's what's confounding this whole thing.

Yeah yeah, the ol' Reverend has spent 30 years preching the Love of Christ, but one day, ONE DAY!, he slipped the moorings of his rationality and preached hatred. Too bad there were cameras in operation. But he NEVER thought like that before or since. Actually, it wasn't even one day, it was only 20 MINUTES!

So, we really need to give him a pass, because it was only for 20 minutes, oh, and he's black, and blacks get a free pass on racial bigotry (unlike whites, who have NEVER been beaten up by a black person and thus have NO reason to be angry). And we give him a pass because, heck, the libs all gave Trent Lott a pass when he said nice things about Thurmond. Oh, wait, they actually ran him out on a rail. Hmmmm.

Well, we give the Reverend a pass anyway because Liberals hate America more than they fear those who would destroy her. (Yes, "God damn America" calls for destruction.)

Really, anyone who would run cover for that bigot makes me wanna puke. As a matter of fact, I just threw up a little into my mouth.

If Obama can really raise the dead he may have to start with his own presidential prospects.

Trent Lott. Hmmm, graduated from college in 1963 and law school in 1967. A war going on and he answered America's need by going to law school. Yup, he loves America. Then he went into politics. I guess that beats feeding the hungry , ministering to the sick, counseling couples in distress, working with the poor. We are talking about the Trent Lott who has left Congress to make big bucks by lobbying right? Guess its only fair cause retired ministers make the really big bucks.

Steve

"I find that, although I admire Sen. Obama very much, I would be less willing to accept his continued membership in this church if it is really identified with this particular man. I am not, however, a Christian, and so I am not sure how much weight a Christian gives a particular reverend in his allegiance."

Christianity 101: A Priest, preacher, reverend, pastor, etc. tells his flock how they should live there lives on Earth in their quest to live life eternal after they leave it.

It is my understanding that Obama has attended this Church for decades, and that the Reverend not only married him to that woman not known for her patriotic pride, he also baptized the Obama children.

But we all know, because the libs here have told us, that the Reverend has not preached hatred and bigotry all those years. He just had a, what shall we call it, an episode. Yeah, that's it, he had an episode.

Pardon me, I have to go puke now.

Max, I think the point is that while Rev. wright obviously is passionately angry and cynical about America he also *gasp* holds thousands of other opinions and ideas in his noggin which are far less offensive. I am married to a man who holds any number of opinions I find repugnant and sometimes even immoral yet I married him and remain married to him. I can appreciate the zillions of good things about him without feeling the need to walk out in disgust because of those dozen or so ideas he has which I find reprehensible. Thankfully, he also extends me the same grace as I know that I hold certain ideas and opinions which are just as objectionable to him.

Again, this whole line of argument and the complete resistance to reason just screams bad faith to me. The problem isn't that a man's obviously wrong and repugnant opinions on a few things (even granting that they may be important things) necessitate ignoring everything else about him and dropping him like a small pox infested hankerchief. The problem is that Obama isn't living up to the white conservative ideal of what they want "transcending race" should look like and if they don't derail this train, we a vision of what is needed to solve our race problems that requires something of white people might come to be accepted. And we just can't live with that. Or at least that's how I've come to see it over the course of these many conversations here. I'd like to think I'm wrong, but the longer this conversation goes on, the harder it is for me to imagine another motivation for the obsession with it.

Rebeccat--I understand what you are saying, and my original post was meant to propose this: when people see this as a prominent and recurring thing, everyone lapses into a dualistic approach to problems, myself included.

I think people are correct to question what's going on here.

My question to you--what do you propose we do to take race problems seriously? It obviously is a problem.

Lesse, Rod has quoted:

Obama's preacher as saying 'bad things' about America

Obama's wife as saying 'bad things' about America

But when is Rod going to quote Obama himself as having said bad things about America.

Because Obama's wife and pastor aren't on the ticket.

Unless it can be shown that Obama shares these views, then all we have here is a smear by association.

>>>>
What is troubling about Rev. Wright's incendiary statements is that many people are going to see his words as racist and bigoted; coming from a man whose huge importance to his own life Obama has stressed, they are at least a little disconcerting, don't you think?
Posted by: Erin Manning | March 16, 2008 7:30 PM
>>>>

Just gonna toss this out here - rebbecat and other folks who know more about this can tell me if I'm on the right track...

The Prophet Jeremiah said some harsh things about Israel, not because he hated Israel, but because Israel had fallen away from its path.

Is it possible that Rev. Wright's jeremiads come from that same tradition, a tradition might be well-known in African - American churches, in which the preacher decries the shortcomings of American society and calls for repentance at the national and individual level?

And is it just barely possible that an individual such as Senator Obama might take from such sermons NOT a hate for America, but rather a sense that people of good will should work together to address the nation's shortcomings?

rebeccat,

I'll take the time you wasted typing out a speech by King with which I'm already familiar as an admission that, as in previous posts, you have no substantive rebuttal to make on *Christian* grounds to my critique of certain attitudes expressed by some people around Barack Obama.

As to the rest of your post, I'll have to return-to-sender your observation that someone here is "mad" about something. Not me, so you must have meant that insight for somebody else. The same goes for your observation that someone here thinks "everything is hunky dory and all black folks need to do is to stop being being mad and enjoy the bountiful harvest of America."

I know you're busy keeping various and sundry straw-men in check -- and what would "black folks" do without *you* -- so no hard feelings on this end for having gotten someone else's mail.

PS: Does it occur to you that someone *other* than me might have benefitted from some context for Daniel's quote of King -- context that might have helped explain why his and your implicit comparison of Jeremiah Wright to Martin Luther King is *way* off base.

If Wright means the same thing as King does here, I'm wondering why he doesn't say so, instead of saying "goddamn" this, "goddamn" that, "goddamn" everybody but me.

Conversely, if King meant the same thing as Wright meant in the statements we're discussing her, why didn't *he* just say so?

"I have a dream that one day god will damn America for all its many sins."

Not quite the same, would you say?

PPS: Also, in case you're wondering where I heard about the statement from TUCC comparing criticism of Wright to King's assassination, the statement was quoted in an article this afternoon at Politico.

I don't know, Rebeccacat. Didn't that church do some kind of an offical tribute to Loius Farrakhan recently? I mean, LOUIS FARRAKHAN??

Even allowing for some over-the-top rhetoric and some airing of racial grievance, that doesn't strike me as your run of the mill, black activist church. . . Am I missing something?

I'm with Franklin - this kind of trumped-up political controversy is pretty sad, let alone repetitive and boring.

So, I'm going off topic, head held high!

Palm Sunday touched me deeply today, moreso than usual. The epistle (Phillipians 2:6-11) and the phrase "rather, Jesus emptied himself", struck me. As someone who struggles with pride, humility, and the fear of being of no consequence - I needed those words today.

One funny typical Catholic moment. Our church hands out palms before Mass in our rec center (attached to the church) and then the congregation processes into the church singing the song "Hosanna to the Son of David". Our cantor, God bless her, jumped the gun before the blessing of the palms and needed to be corrected. There were some smiles and chuckles, and the priest then asked God to forgive us all for our innocent mirth of that moment. Which made me ask myself: if it was innocent mirth, why do we need foriveness? :-)

Thanks for a moment of sanity, Jim, however brief. I planned to accompany Mr. Sig to the tiny Lutheran church where he has found refuge, but my youngest son and his fiancee have been visiting this week, and as young people are often wont to do, took a bit longer gettting packed up than they had anticipated. So I sent Mr. Sig off to church while I watched over the final packing of a small car with much clean laundry (looked like everything they owned, plus some blankets), two cats, a cooler bag full of pork roast, beef stew and bacon from the meat market, and several bags of other random groceries I'd collected to provision them with. I rescued the Nipper's glasses and shoes from being left behind.

The relevant point of all this being that Mr. Sig had to retrieve the palms from church, plus extras to send to my parents. My father is too cranky to attend church anywhere but one special place, and he has decreed that he's unable to drive for the hour it takes to get there. So they were in need of palms. I'd been fantasizing about how to get some without attending church. I figured I could probably lurk in the shrubbery near the Catholic church, and scare some folks emerging from Mass and take their palms! A hit and run raid on the sacred! I really wished I could tell my parents that's how I got their sacramentals, just to see how they'd take it. But in the end, decorum prevailed when I talked to them on the phone. It would make a good story, though. And I feel no need to ask forgiveness for my self-made mirth. I already decided to give up being sorry for Lent. ; )

Yeah, "approval by the blog owner!" And that means agreeing with his prejudices or you won't be posted, just as in all our media! It's all a god-damned waste of time! That's why we never grow up. That's why we never improve.

Gil Cantln

Farakhan is an undicted accomplice in both the murders of Malcolm X and NYPD Patrolman Philip Cardillo. But Wright voluntarily choose to honor him as "man of the year". There are books written on each,Randy Jurgensen's "Circle of Six" about the later, and many about the former.

Another instance where Obama we must surmise wasn't present, wasn't privvy to or wasn't knowledgable about.Obama after that continued to embrace Wright and support his church. And we are to pretend that thee various clips are just a snippet of his career.Folks, you're playing games; Obama is not credible playing the "I didn't know" card.

The shocking thing to many is how these crazy ideas have currency among African-Americans. And how quick liberals here and elsewhere are willing to look the other way.

Erin, you mention the time since the passage of the civil rights bill and the implimentation of affirmative action. However, as Dr. King pointed out in part of the speech I quoted from above, we have a habit of saying, "you're free - go be successful" without helping people to get the footing which white Americans have taken for granted. I don't know if anyone's studied it, but I would be willing to bet that the number of people helped by affirmative action policies numbers in the tens of thousands - one hundred fifty thousand tops. There are tens of millions of african americans in this country. The idea that offering affirmative action to a very small percentage of them goes very far to setting things right is simply wrong. To take advantage of affirmative action policies, a person has to have the sort of quality education which is simply not available to a disproportionate number of african americans.

Think about this - in 1965 the overwhelming majority of african americans were living in subpar, segregated neighborhoods. Once the civil rights bill passed, did this mean that this was no longer a problem? Now an african american could move into other neighborhoods, but in order to do so, they first had to find a buyer for their home in an undesirable neighborhood. Then they had to accept a selling price which usually would not have allowed them to make enough of a profit to make a down payment on a home in a nicer, white neighborhood. Plus, the passage of the civil rights bill didn't mean that a person suddenly had a better job paying better wages within the next month. When better paying jobs came open, they would still have to compete for them, usually against white men who hadn't been forced to spend their careers up until that point in subpar jobs for subpar wages (companies usually base your starting pay as slightly more than you were making in your last job). So although african americans gained the right to live where ever they wanted back in the mid 60s, that isn't the same thing as setting things right. It's one thing to stop doing evil, it's quite another thing to repair the evil which has already been done. We've done a great job on the former while making half-hearted at best efforts at doing the latter.

As for doing something which requires something of white people, seriously, what have white people done? We stopped doing evil. Great. But what have we given? What have we done that hasn't been absolutely required of us? A relative handful of affirmative action policies? That we've done NOTHING but itch and moan about ever since? Some welfare programs which further destroyed the shattered remains of the black family? What?

And it's one thing to ask what the heck is going on when we hear stuff like what Rev. Wright is saying. We can say, "why is Obama associated with this man?" It's quite another to refuse to accept or seriously consider any explantion except for the one we want. There have been reasonable explanations given both by Obama and by people here. However, without seriously acknowledging or addressing such explanations, right now 40% of the "recent posts" Rod has up are about Obama and this guy. It's like I tell my kids when they keep asking why, "you don't want to hear the reason why, you just want me to do what you want me to do. So stop asking." It is quite obvious that Rod and many of the people here don't care to hear the answer they keep asking.

Max, I love your posts and your sarcastic wit!

You lefties can spin all you want, Rev. Wright says stupid, harmful, evil things. You have to wonder about Obama now(as well as Oprah).

Only the uneducated say such stupid things. Can you imagine Bill Cosby saying that kind of crap?

Here's a link to Steve Sailer's blog posts on the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright over the past year:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/Rev.%20Dr.%20Jeremiah%20A.%20Wright%20Jr.

I'm with rebeccat on this one. Yeah, a lot of black people are unhappy. A lot of black people feel that, despite the promise of equality, that promise hasn't been fulfilled yet. A lot of them say things about the government, about the control of this country by 'rich white people', that aren't actually true.

A lot of them believe totally dumb conspiracies theories. Take any cross section of angry people, and you will find dumb conspiracy theories. Take a random sample of people angry at Bush, and you'll find loons who say he caused 9/11. Take a random sample of conservatives, and you'll find loons who say Clinton was a mass murderer. Take a random sample of angry black people, and you'll find loons who think there's chemicals in Church's Chicken to make people sterile.

And black preachers, as they are, in fact, attempting to preach on relevant topics, preach on this anger. Many of them are not as subtle or have as much grace and poise as MLK, and sometimes end up sounding like they're angry at white people, especially in short snippets.

Of course, all preaching I've ever seen where anger was aimed at someone else at the start was actually a trick, because, and this is somewhat obvious, preachers are actually preaching at the congregation. So they get the congregation annoyed at someone else and then flip it around and show them what's actually going on.

But let's continue to dissect tiny snips of sermons. (You know, if you dissected the sermons of my church like that, you'd recently be able to demonstrate that we should burn down libraries.)

Anyway, back to the anger, good work figuring that out, conservatives. You're really on the ball there. Make a note: Many black people are pissed at America. They are not filled with the happy-love-joy feeling that conservatives have, which I believe you refer to as 'Patriotism'. Apparently, and I have trouble grasping this, people who were spit on and called racial slurs and denied jobs 40 years ago haven't caught up to this new reality where racism magically disappeared and they magically were on equal footings with whites. Maybe they're just not paying attention.

But, obviously, we should ignore black candidates because a person that black man admires is not America's biggest fan. We should probably wait to elect a black man until all black anger has faded away.

We probably should write them a note: We refuse to elect you until you forget that we've discriminated against you. So ha!

Or, somewhat pithier: The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I propose a deal for you, Erin. You can hold Obama responsible for ending "blind hatred directed at white people from some segments of the black community" exactly five minutes after you take responsibility for ending all "blind hatred directed at black people from some segments of the white community." Go for it.

Don, you ask what we can do to address racial problems. I'm certainly not the goddess of all the right answers (although I play one on the internet - kidding, kidding!). However, if I were made goddess, I would offer the following suggestions.

First of all, accept that most african americans have a different perspective than most white people. Sometimes that perspective is off track, sometime it is right and our perspective as white people is off, almost always there's something underlying it. Right now it seems like when the differences in perspective between many black folks and white folks comes to light, the black perspective is taken as prima facia evidence of black dysfunction while the assumptions underlying the white perspective are rarely questioned. We decide what's right and whatever doesn't fit that view of things is automatically not just wrong, but evidence of bad faith or dysfunction or some other negative attribute. A person can't ever just be wrong - they must also be bad. Think of what that dynamic looks like from the perspective of an african american.

Actually, really thinking about how things look from the perspective of an african american would be an excellent place to start. What do complaints about affirmative action sound like to the ears of someone studies have found will be viewed as being on par with a white man with a felony record on a job interview by virtue of being black? From an african american POV, affirmative action might be wrong, but it's pretty hard swallow the fact that conservatives appear to be obsessed with the injustice of affirmative action yet don't seem to care at all about the disadvantage an african american faces in the market place.

I think that if conservatives want to help to fix things along with acknowledging that there's a need to help fix things and taking the black perspective into consideration, I think they need to start thinking seriously about what conservative ideals applied to the problem would look like. Up to now, conservatives have addressed race issues almost exclusively by objecting to what is wrong with liberal "solutions" to the problem. This just isn't good enough. Just like conservatives finally had to start thinking about applying conservative principles to the problems of our healthcare industry, we need to think about how we can apply conservative principles to the problems of race.

Off the top of my head, conservatives could advocate for more robust enforcement of our anti-discrimination laws by doing periodic stings on companies, realtors, landlords, banks and other industries with a history of mistreating african americans to see if there are disparities between how whites and comparably qualified african americans are being treated.

We could work to tie welfare benefits to attending parenting classes and fund programs which are shown to result in improved parenting of at risk kids like sending nurses into the homes of at risk parents once or twice a month in the first year of a child's life. We advocate for the creation of residential schools for elementary school children who are being neglected or are perpetual discipline problems and whose parents are uncooperative with addressing the situation to be sent to before they wind up in juvi.

My husband once said something which brought me up short. He pointed out that we were willing to invest many billions of dollars in rebuilding Japan and Europe after WWII. As Dr. King pointed out in part of the speech I quoted above, we gave away land to white settlers and established a system to educate them to be farmers. We continue to pour money into these white farmers (the department of agriculture was forced to settle with black farmers a couple of years ago for years of refusing to include them in this program). Why have we not been willing to invest in supporting and giving a leg up to black americans in the same way? Why not a Marshal Plan for the inner city?

Heck, as conservatives, we could offer these sort of policies and use their importance and the need to fund them as an excuse to cut the rest of the government to the bone.

An interesting thing, recently Bruce Bartlet, a long time republican operative suggested trading affirmative action for reparations. I'm not the only conservative saying we need to find other ways of handling this issue. I don't think reparations are a good or workable idea and I think they fail the basic test of anything we would do - does it make things better? Or just throw a bone at the problem? However, other people have suggested things like allowing African Americans to not pay federal income taxes for a certain amount of time, perhaps tied to spending the money on certain approved things like educational materials, starting a business, investing in stock, whatever. Or we could seek out serious thinkers in the black community who have experience on the ground and start actually listening to them.

Anyways, those are just some ideas off the top of my head. I guess that part of why this conversation bothers me is first of all, I am aware of what it looks like from an african american point of view and it's not pretty. Continually refusing to even consider that fact only ensures that the problems remain firmly in place. Really, it's just the conservative version of the witch hunts that have brought down Don Imus, that dumb golf channel announcer and various others who have been caught saying dumb things with regards to race. It doesn't help make it better. We have to stop taking the easy route of getting stuck on the dumb stuff that someone like Rev. Wright says, and think seriously about how to make things better. It reminds me of the best advice I ever got (from an african american woman, no less) when I got married: "sometimes you have to ask yourself; would you rather be right? Or would you rather be married? Because you can be right all the way to divorce court." Thus far, conservatives seem to have decided that divorce court is preferable to letting go of being right from time to time. Only, there is no option of divorce between black americans and white americans.

Sorry. Haven't had time to read all the posts. Busy St.Pat's weekend.

When I began to read about the bloated floating bodies, my mind immediately went to accounts from Hurricane Katrina. There was such darkness in witnessing that whole experience. The helplessness of watching from so far away. So much darkness. So little assistance at the time of greatest need.

I just think I cannot even begin to comprehend the difficulties of race in America. Never mind have knowledge enough to judge.

My Dad had one mantra he would always repeat to us when we were kids.
"Love people, use things. Too many people get that backwards. Don't be one of them."

God Bless America. And God love our people. We need to learn to be parts of one body - Every one with their gifts, talents and purpose. Every one with a reasonable chance to be healthy, wise and good if we so choose. Every one proud to be part of a nation that comes together. Works together. Lives together in peace and prosperity.

Passive compliance does not make for healthy relationships. Nor does violent confrontation. MLK had the balance right: Ahimsa, Speaking Truth powerfully but in peace. MLK saw the dangers of anger. He saw how easily his message could be discounted by violence. He trained his marchers in the way of Ahimsa. Peaceful opposition to unjust policy.

If MLK's message had been delivered in anger, his complaints would have been NO LESS VALID. But his words would have fallen on a greater number of deaf ears, I think. Maybe not African American ears, but deaf white ears? Easily. Ammunition for the opposition to shoot him down. That's where Rev. Wright fails. RW Emerson applies. "Rev. Wright, You are speaking so loudly that I can't hear what you are saying."

And biblically, "I can understand all secrets, I can have faith to move mountains, but if I have not love it does me no good." Seeping sarcasm and sweeping generalizations destroy the trust of his listeners and the power of your moments of truth.

TGBTG
Pax,
Sheilagh

Sig, did you read my post?

I'm not holding Obama responsible for anything Rev. Wright said. Period.

But since Obama has told us precious little about what he will actually DO to improve race relations in America, it's not at all unfair for people to notice that a man to whom Obama has rather close ties seems to think, among other things, that white people are causing AIDS among their latest efforts to keep black people at a disadvantage.

Rebecca seems to be saying that Rev. Wright is justified in these words because aside from the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and a host of other well-intentioned programs, what have whites really done for black Americans to undo the damage some of our ancestors did to many of their ancestors, which has kept them from succeeding in this nation?

So I want to know what else whites should do. If we've failed to help black Americans to succeed, then where are we failing, why, and what else needs to be done?

And THIS is the question I think Obama needs to answer. He's distanced himself somewhat from the Reverend's hate, which is good. But now tell us: what does Barack Obama think needs to be done to improve race relations in America?

If we're not supposed to look to Rev. Wright and Michelle Obama for clues, then Barack Obama needs to answer this question (among many others). It's easy to say that you're for "Hope!" and "Change!" so long as you neglect to tell people what, specifically, it is that you hope will change.

Mark Steyn, making sense? Really? Let's be honest here. It's Mark Steyn seizing an opportunity to continue the smear of a Democratic candidate to advantage his own. I can't recall the same level of High Dudgeon from him about comments from, oh, let's say, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, etc, etc, ad nuaseum, ad infinitum.

And to Erin Manning, who asks in earnest:

So I want to know what else whites should do. If we've failed to help black Americans to succeed, then where are we failing, why, and what else needs to be done?

How about allowing people to say whatever they damn well please in our allegedly free-speech society without being pounced on and charged with anti-American heresy? And to step aside and allow people to cope with the layers of complexity of their particular American experience without them having to answer to the smug and superior elitists who presume to challenge the veracity of those experiences?

That would be a start, Erin, and it would require very little of you.

Rod, I just caught your update. I don't think many african americans, including Rev. Wright would trade life here for life in many places in africa. Although, thankfully not all of africa exists in the nightmare of carnage we read about in the media.

However, I would also repeat the words of a friend from long ago, "the fact that you have cancer doesn't mean that my broken leg doesn't hurt. It may make me glad that I'm not at risk of dying, but that's not going to stop me from needing to have the darn thing set." IOW, the fact that things are worse somewhere else may help us keep things in perspective, but it doesn't take away all the pain or eliminate the need to solve the problems we do face.

Again, I'm not saying that what Rev. Wright says is acceptable or correct. However, the reaction to what he says around here is so over the top and unthinking that it indicates to me that there's a deeper problem than just feeling the need to express disapproval of Rev. Wright over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. (And again for good measure.)

Well, nepat, like I said before, I don't hold Obama responsible for Wright's rhetoric; and I certainly don't hold him responsible for Wright's experiences.

But what I'm seeing is actually a subtle form of racism that says that we can't apply the same standards or ask the same questions of Barack Obama that we can of any other presidential candidate. Let's be honest: if any other presidential candidate had ever pointed repeatedly to a spiritual mentor who had written or said the kind of divisive things Wright has said, no quarter would be given; the media would be all over that.

As they are, here. As they should be. Because to do anything less is to say that because the candidate is black and the pastor in question is black they're somehow off-limits to these honest and sincere questions.

"Max and Francois- Just so Ill understand where you are coming from. Would you rather your child grow up to be like 1) Mark Steyn. Dropped out of school to be a DJ. Became a film and music critic. Is now a conservative writer. Is able to sing God Bless America. Or 2) Finishes school. Serves the military while his country is at war. Gets a degree in theology. Preaches the gospel. Works with the poor. Sets up programs to feed the hungry, care for the homeless, get medical help for the sick. Once every few years says "God Damn America". Just wondering."

What does it profit a man to gain the world only to lose his soul?

I would rather my child grow up to live in poverty and want, to be sick even (in body) than to be a hateful bigot with the soul cancer of hatred in his heart.

I've been poor and homeless and I've been very sick and in chronic pain; there are far worse things.

Steve, your turn. What do you prefer, your children growing up to be bigots, growing up to live in poverty?

The distance libs go to cover for bigots never ceases to amaze me.

Mark Steyn lives in poverty? wow. I didn't know that!

So I want to know what else whites should do. If we've failed to help black Americans to succeed, then where are we failing, why, and what else needs to be done?

1) I guess we could ask black people what would be helpful. Seems like a lot of past fixes were created by white elites who "knew best". As an elite white I will attempt to demonstrate this.

2) Revisit the war on drugs. The discrepancy between sentencing for powder cocaine and crack cocaine is one of the larger reasons for discrepancies in white and black rates of incarceration. There is really no reason for the difference in sentencing. This war has not worked anyway. Drugs are plentiful and cheap. Stealing to pay for drugs is the biggest risk from them anyway. I waffle on whether or not all should be decriminalized (especially Meth) but what we are doing has not worked and, largely for economic reasons, has resulted in a disproportionate number of blacks in jail. Einstein said insanity is repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different result. Lets try something different.

3) Proactive employment monitoring. Our current system only responds to complaints. Harford in his latest book demonstrated that there is still a lot of discrimination in hiring practices. This was true in private business and government employment. (Interestingly, once actually hired blacks do just about as well and maybe even better than whites).

4) Education for blacks needs to be improved. This is mostly an inner city problem IMO. I am encouraged by what Bloomberg is trying in NYC. This will probably mean charter/magnet schools and /or vouchers. It will probably mean a head on battle with the NEA. It may mean year round school.

5) Vote for a black president who tells parents they need to sit down and study with their kids and that they need to stop feeding them sodas and cold Popeyes for breakfast.

Ok, just kidding (mostly) on that last one. Maybe just having people know that there are a lot of black people who feel the way Wright does may be enough to help them wonder why.

Steve

Now Obama's church has issued a statement comparing criticism of the Rev. Wright to the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. They make themselves look more ridiculous by the day.

Well, no they aren't. They are using the legacy of MLK to point out that not much has changed and that an African American minister who preaches about racism and social justice is having his character assassinated.

In the end, Martin Luther King Jr. would "get" Wright and understand his ministry and would point out it isn't hateful or racist. I mean, since we are going to use the King legacy, but let's at least be honest about King's work. It was radical. It was angry. It set the tone for the kind of rhetoric that shaped Wright's ministry (beyond the out-of-context 30-second snippets).

McCain is one of the few pols in the US who could credibly make such a call.

Instead, McCain is busy going soft on torture because he has to win over the GOP's far right. So much for honor.

What more can white people do? Not that anyone here gives a hoot about the answer, but the very first thing white people can do is stop trying to compare the struggles of their grandfathers and great grandfathers with what african americans have been put through. I'm so sorry, but unless your grandparents were Jewish survivors of the Nazi regime who remained in Germany after the war, there's no comparison. Our forefathers may have suffered deprivation, but at least they didn't have to do it while also having every route to self-improvement and gain through honest work closed to them by force, it's not the same thing. Not at all.

And that goes triple if your father or grandfather benefited from the GI bill. Because of government policies, african americans who fought bravely and honorably for this country were denied this benefit which is largely responsible for creating the white middle class in this country. But after all the damage was done, after the black family was in tatters, after decades of living with the terror that your son or husband could be tortured and mutilated for nothing more than raising his eyes too high, once white america had ensured that they were secure in their middle class comforts while blacks were left behind, once we had produced enough under-educated african americans to be certain that it would be a long time before they were a threat for our jobs, we stopped allowing legalized discrimination. Once the damage had about hit its peak, we relented - while complaining bitterly the whole time. And now we can sit back and talk about our poor, deprived grandfathers who started with nothing.

We took EVERYTHING from our african american citizens and have never given back more than the bare minimum which is due any sentient being and are surprised that we a sizable number of angry african americans who resent their country and a seemingly permanent black underclass drowning in dysfunction and despair? Gosh, what more could we do?

I hope every American understands when this is all said and done, a little more about the Black community in America. White America needs to stop burying its head in the sand and pretend this isn't going on. We are hated.
This sort of preaching is not unusual, it's stock Black, liberation theology. You can find it at the majority of Black churches and not a few white ones.

Put me as carrying water for Rebeccat and Sigaliris. In fact you can put me down as carrying water and handling the dipper for this pair to draw to.

While I'm not as eloquent nor as passionate as these ladies I do feel we as a nation need to feel shame for what we've done as a nation to a significant percentage of our population. One only has to drive the hinterlands of the southwest to see what racism can do to a group of people. The same thing can be found in the deep south or in the bellys of our major cities.

What we see in those areas is critical evidence of the kind of nation we are. The same internal sickness that created poverty based upon racism is now being reflected in the financial crisis we're discussing elsewhere in crunchyville USA. The concept that one race is superior to another is the same concept we see at work in irresponsible lending and borrowing.

I'm excited about Obama as President for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is the message his election sends to Washington. Our sending the least experienced, youngest, and probably even more importantly, blackest, candidate available to the highest job in the land screams the loudest about how we feel about politics in Washington as we've known it. Almost as importantly it sends an important message to us about us. It says we're not our parents Americans. We're better than that.

Because of government policies, african americans who fought bravely and honorably for this country were denied this benefit which is largely responsible for creating the white middle class in this country.

But according to Wright, the middle class is a just a white plan to destroy blacks too (Look at the Black Value System page on the Trinity web site). See what you're doing, everything whites do is some sort of notorious plan to destroy blacks.

Also, look at Obama's wife. She got the opportunity to go to an Ivy league school. She's lived at worst an upper-middle class life and she still hates.

So, we have Obama's wife who hates and his pastor who hates. Why is it unreasonable to be concerned that Obama might harbor the same beliefs?

In answer to the question of what whites can do to make right past slavery and racism, nothing. We can't do anything because any time blacks fail it will still be our fault. Rebeccat is a perfect example of the type of person who will always blame whites, even though she is white herself. A civil war to end slavery that wrecked half the country and left 600,000 dead, not enough. An end to Jim Crow, not enough. Forty years of affirmative action, and innumerable education and social programs, not enough. Quota systems in everything but name only, not enough. Spending massive amounts of money on predominately inner-city school systems (the city school district where I live spends $10K+ per student), not enough. Personally, I don't care anymore. Even Obama wrote in one of his books that whites were starting not to care anymore. We've tried to make amends and in return we get people like Wright and Michelle O.

Before someone accuses me of unrepentant racism, my wife had a black college roommate. As such, we spent a decent amount of time around her and her friends. The roommate came from a stable two parent family and her and her sister became a pharmacist and a nurse respectively. You could divide the roommates black friends up between those who thought they were owed and those who recognized that they were just like everyone else. The former attitude was the predominate one. Whites didn't cause the roommate's parents to stay together and emphasize education. They also aren't the reason that they are still single and can't find husbands.

Erin Manning -

And the media aren't all over this? Where is the evidence of that special standard? There has been 24/7 coverage of this since Thursday.

In fact there is a double standard and it favors white Christians. Have you ever once heard the media and the electorate require Catholics to explain their continued participation in a church that aided and abetted the systematic sexual abuse of adolescent boys over a period of decades? Or why they continue to give money to such a church? I never have.

Maybe if those guilty priests had simply described their sexual fantasies from the pulpit would those congregations have been roused to the levels of outrage we're seeing here. Instead, they left in their wake nothing more consequential than a long list of damaged psyches, broken hearts and minds, suicides, and emotional dysfunction.

Of course there is a double standard. And while I don't think it's racist, I do believe it's racial. White folks peek inside the black church and are horrified to discover that the congregation doesn't share their phony and condescending patriotism. The judgment? Let's take them all out to the woodshed and flog them until they see things the right way.

What's most distressing is that this is completely invisible to most white people, who carry their patriotism like a blunt object, ready to beat down anyone who doesn't meet their requirements.

Quick poll, don't post just raise your hands: how many understand that race relations and racial inequality are vastly improved compared to 100 years ago? Now, keep them up... and put your hands down if you fail to understand that the cultural changes necessary to bring actual, full equality will take at least another 100 years.

Dr. King understood this chronological perspective. His sacrifice (I would find it insane to not assume that he knew exactly the risks he was taking) was much more important in the context of that understanding. He knew things would not be all that much better in his lifetime, yet he went out and made the effort. A good man stepped up.

Rev. Wright is the direct heir to King... and he is an example of that Good Intention paved road. There are other direct heirs out there, some outspoken, some not, some waiting in the wings. At some point, there will be another voice that says it better than Wright, and he just might make it to the national stage and be a part of the next push towards equality.

And by all the gods, Obama certainly looks like he could be one of those better voices. If not, well there's always another election down the road, and other voices who will emerge.

Oh, and when Falwell and Robertson said in almost as many words "God has damned America", the millions who should have been up in arms over that totally unacceptable blasphemy -- of daring to even suggest that their God might not be happy with us -- were instead nodding their heads in agreement, and sending another check to line the televangelism pockets.

Franklin, I'll hold Max while you beat him repeatedly, often, and with much enthusiasm.

Max, it's hard to hear the mice in the belfry, you should have squeeked up. We couldn't hear you over the amens.

Steve,

You owe me an answer to my question.

I answered your false-dichotomy question; but you dodged mine.

Please answer, and remember, the only choices are IN the question:

Would you rather you son grow up to be a bigot or grow up to live in poverty?

Again, I answered your question as it was asked, now, please do the same and remember, my question is really just your original question thrown back at you.

Come on, man up, and answer.

Oh, and why all the hatin' on DJs? I never even think of DJs, but they seem to hold a rather low office in your cosmology.

Oh, and when Falwell and Robertson said in almost as many words "God has damned America", the millions who should have been up in arms over that totally unacceptable blasphemy -- of daring to even suggest that their God might not be happy with us -- were instead nodding their heads in agreement, and sending another check to line the televangelism pockets.

Franklin, as Max correctly notes, those remarks by Falwell (on Robertson's tv show, I believe) were loudly and widely condemned -- from the right -- back in 2001.

More importantly, if a major presidential candidate emerged from one of those churches and identified Falwell or Robertson as the most important influence in his adult life, those remarks would surely and deservedly been used against the candidate.

Harvey, I'll bring the nerf bats, but if we're going to jump Max you have to wear a name tag with "Franklin" on it, and I get to wear mine that says "Hello, My Name Is... Inigo Montoya (etc.)"

Max, seriously, I wonder if you'd have taken the quoted text differently if you'd remembered that I wrote it*. My glib response to you is: not one of those condemning the 9/11 commentary were in or running for federal elective office. Further, if Falwell or Robertson were the fondly named spiritual advisor(s) to someone running for federal elective office during 2002, what would you imagine those candidates to say?

* My sensitivity to those remarks may be understood, since I fall under several of the categories they named, the primary one being pagan. It should be noted, too, that I am over it by now. ;-)

"My glib response to you is: not one of those condemning the 9/11 commentary were in or running for federal elective office."

My response to this is that 2001 was not an election year, and the "off-year" elections of 2002 were a year away.

Hey, if you took personal offence because Fallwell or whoever lumped pagens into the reason for God's judgment, I can only say (as a Christian) that I took personal offense as well because he said such wicked things while claiming to speak for Christians.

In other words: He insulted us both.

I think I've made it clear on this thread that I reject the idea that God condems men or nations categorically. Since He became Man, to do so would be to condemn Himself as well; impossible.

Further, I would add that God condemns no one to Hell. Those in Hell, and those heading there, do so because they prefer it to the alternative. But that's another conversation.

Uhhh, I dance like a brain damaged MIT professor. I have an old homemade smoker with which I make a pretty fair brisket, ribs etc. That does require beer. Coming from a family where most of the men are farmers, engineers, small business types and ministers a DJ or artist or actor would just seem sort of weird. If my son really wanted to be a Dj my wife would sit me down and say "dont be such an ass" and I would support his effort and get used to it. Still wouldnt feel right.

Steve

Just a couple of things to add to this very lengthy discussion.

First, Obama has attended this church for almost 2 decades. He calls its pastor his "spiritual mentor." Even if he did not attend the sermons that have been shown on the news and posted on the web, it is ludicrous to suggest that he didn't know who Jeremiah Wright was, or that he was not aware of some of Wright's more extremist views.

Secondly, the quotes from Wright suggest that he not only suffers from paranoid delusions, but that he is teaching his flock to believe the same. Believing that the U.S. Gov. created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against African-Americans is a paranoid delusion. Believing the U.S. Gov. uses drugs to destroy the African-American community is a paranoid delusion.

So, if Obama becomes President, will he encourage African-Americans like Wright who believe in a paranoid-delusional view of history?

These are legitmate concerns to have -- and they don't deny the very real history of racism and societal oppression against African-Americans. It's true that I can't possibly understand what it's like to be African-American. But that doesn't mean I'm not capable of forming opinions of people like Wright who represent the lunatic fringe. (If he's not representative of the lunatic fringe, we are in even more trouble than we think.)

Here is my National Review Online column from 9/16/01, re: Falwell and Robertson and their remarks. Too emotional in retrospect, and I wish I hadn't used the profanity -- then again, it was less than a week after 9/11 -- but I'm glad I said what I did:

Citizens
Awful timing.

By Rod Dreher, columnist, New York Post.
September 16, 2001 12:45 p.m.


The Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had a televised discussion this week about the terror attacks.

"Pagans and abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians ... the ACLU, People for the American Way, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen,' "Falwell said, saying that God has lifted his protection of the U.S. because of such people. Robertson said, "I concur."

Well. As an observant Catholic and social conservative, I can accept that God allowed this horror to happen as a form of chastisement upon our sinful nation, though it seems to me unlikely that the Almighty will be so eager to smite the ACLU that He will overlook the business alliance a certain Virginia Beach televangelist made with the late Mobutu Sese Seko, a vicious African dictator who controlled access to a coveted diamond mine. While we're at it, it seems unlikely that the Almighty will overlook the failure of a certain Brooklyn-based NRO contributor to practice love of God and neighbor to the extent that he has been able. We are all sinners in need of repentance and conversion.

Still, Falwell and Robertson have a point. It is possible, perhaps probable, that this monstrous act, and the plagues likely to follow (war, economic depression, etc.), is part of God's permissive will, meant to call all of us back to righteousness. There is Scriptural precedent in God's dealings with the nation of Israel, whose prophets foretold doom from Heaven if its people did not repent of their sins. Those of us who believe in God must allow for this brutal mystery.

However.

I saw the first tower fall, and fled across the Brooklyn Bridge, as part of that terrified exodus of humanity, just ahead of the dust cloud. I held my sobbing, shaking wife in my arms when she opened the front door, saw me covered with dust, and knew for the first time in an excruciating hour that I had not died.

I went to mass two nights ago, and prayed with church members who lost family and friends in the disaster. I am hearing from friends on the scene, who are telling me what they're not showing us on TV: body parts everywhere, strewn amid the rubble. I went yesterday to pay my respects to Engine Company 205 in Brooklyn Heights. They lost their entire ladder company in the collapse. The wives of the missing men kept vigil at the firehouse door, comforted by the survivors.

My two-year-old loves firemen, and we used to take him by there to play with the guys at that firehouse, and sit in their truck. Last night, as I was putting my boy to bed, he said, "Pray for firemens."

We pray for firemens in this house.

I held a candle on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, on Thursday night, standing silently with 3,000 of my neighbors, weeping and mourning and praying as we beheld the somber skyline across the harbor, a pall of smoke rising, still rising, from the valley of the shadow of death, in which brave men labored day and night to save those who might still be alive. A group of elderly Hispanic ladies from a nearby parish sang hymns. Someone asked, "Why don't they sing patriotic songs?" A woman with them said, "Because they don't know any English." They gave what they could.

Someone put a small statue of the Virgin Mary at the base of a flagpole in a tiny park, and gave her a mantle of a small American flag. The flagpole stands on the site where Gen. George Washington's headquarters were in the Battle of Brooklyn, a battle on which the fate of our nation turned. If not for a miraculous fog settling over the British fleet in New York harbor on a fateful night in 1776, the silent evacuation across the river of the beaten Continental Army from that site would not have been possible. The destiny of this nation, and indeed the liberty of all mankind, would have been unthinkably altered.

My neighborhood is one of the most liberal precincts in the country. Last night, though, I stood next to a lesbian couple, holding each other and their candles, with tears in their eyes, and I thought: I am with you, ladies. I watched my neighbors, flags, and candles in hand, gaze over the harbor at the Statue of Liberty in the distance. Some held their candles high in salute to her.

Someone put up a sign at the base of the flagpole, a message that was illuminated by all the candles burning for the dead. It read: "Whatever our faith, whatever our belief, let us stand together and pray for the victims and their families." Yes, I thought, this is how it should be. Last night, standing at that flagpole with my rosary in my hand, I felt all our political and cultural differences dissolve. We were one in grief, and love of country.

Moments like this rarely come in the life of our nation, and though we will become aware once again of our disputes and division, for this moment in history, I have nothing but love for these people.

Neighbors. Citizens. Patriots. My fellow Americans. Any other sentiment at this time strikes me as unspeakably profane.

So, bearing in mind the pain those of us who live in and love this great city are suffering now, you know what I have to say, with hot tears in my eyes and cold rain falling on the living and the dead here? Jerry, Pat, you heartless bastards, your timing is awful.

DavidTC- I judge you..... to be an astute observer of the media. I bet if we went back and took Rod's posts out of context we could prove that he has unnatural desires, is a closeted.... Republican and lots of other neat stuff. Words need to be taken in their context. They also need to be evaluated in the context of the people who say them. Just reading Rod's column above (well written) I could conclude that he likes to call people bastards, that he finds public profanity acceptable. Having some context lets us know that he was angry and that is not his usual practice or belief.

Steve

Very moving, Mr Dreher, and very typical of your approach to things, all emotion. Sometimes this is not so bad, like in the article here, and other times it leads you into disaster, like your late enthusiasm for the Iraq War, or your calling for (practically) genocide, when Israel was attacking Lebanon some time back. Do you remember? You linked to articles by noted neoconservatives extolling Hiroshima as a model for What Should be Done? And posted Mr Podhoretz, Sr, who said the US should have exterminated all Sunni males between 15 and 45?

I have some insight into Mr Obama's dilemma. I am an Eastern Catholic, and I have attended for the last 6 years or so a particular parish, where the worship is sublime: a heavenly choir, a gifted pastor, a genuine experience of entering the Holy of Holies at the Divine Liturgy.

But the pastor, whom I dearly love, in 2003 expressed in a homily opinions loathsome to me (support for the American invasion of Iraq; at the time you would probably nodded in agreement).

Later, at the parish social, I publicly rebuked him for imposing his own personal opinions into the Divine Liturgy- contradicting the statements of the Ecumenical Pontiff- which led to some hard words.

But I did not leave the parish; God was truly worshipped there and I wasn't going anywhere.

And Father and I made up and remain good friends (and he has rethought Iraq).

So loyalty to a community does not equal adherence to everything the pastor believes.

And I am not an Obama supporter; as things stand I will not vote...

"Very moving, Mr Dreher, and very typical of your approach to things, all emotion."

Oh blatherskite!

Hey, sure Rod is emotional. He's even, on occasion, very emotional. But he is NEVER all emotion.

Rod is a target rich environment for his detractors because he is open faced. He does wax emotional, and he does tell it just like he sees it. But he is also very very thoughtful. Indeed, to the degree that he is emotional, he is at least two orders of magnitude as much more thoughtful.

So, Mr. non-whatever you are, after reading your opening sentence above I knew immediately that I need not read further. If you lead with crapola, you follow with crapola.

How about "God SAVE America"?

America is the New Babylon. America is damned! What is suprising is peoples inability to see it. We are now fighting in the ancient city of Babylon, BASRA, IRAQ, we fit most of the Scriptures that describe Babylon. I don't agree with Rev. Wright at all. I believe in Israel. But I think Obama will be president and this country will desingrate.
It already is.