After asking, "Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?" Hannity continued to smear Barack and Michelle Obama
SUMMARY: On Hannity's America, Sean Hannity falsely asserted that the minister of Sen. Barack Obama's church "honored [Louis] Farrakhan for lifetime achievement, saying, quote, 'He truly epitomized greatness.' " In fact, the managing editor of a magazine founded by the church wrote those words, not the minister. Hannity also stated that Michelle Obama "wrote in her [undergraduate] thesis that we see at Princeton, you know, the belief -- 'because of the belief that blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor.' " However, as the full context of the passage makes clear, she was discussing views that black students who attended Princeton in the 1970s may have held, not asserting her own views.
On the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity asserted, "As more is learned about Barack Obama's positions, his past, and his affiliations, it seems that the 'change' candidate has all the same problems with race as those before him," and later added, "It's only fair to ask: Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?"
During the segment, Hannity referred to an award given to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan by Trumpet Newsmagazine, a publication founded by Obama's church, and falsely asserted that the then-minister of Obama's church and CEO of the magazine, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "honored Farrakhan for lifetime achievement, saying, quote, 'He truly epitomized greatness.' " Contrary to Hannity's assertion, it was not Wright who said Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." Rather, in the article in which Trumpet discussed its presentation of the award to Farrakhan, it was managing editor Rhoda McKinney-Jones who wrote, "I could not help but think, the Minister, the man with whom I had been so casually speaking, truly epitomized greatness." Further, Hannity did not mention the fact that the Obama campaign issued a statement disagreeing with the magazine's decision to give Farrakhan the award and condemning Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements.
Additionally, during the following segment featuring Democratic strategist Jacques DeGraff, Hannity continued to distort what Obama's wife, Michelle, wrote in her undergraduate thesis, asserting: "She wrote in her thesis that we see at Princeton, you know, the belief -- 'because of the belief that blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor.' " However, as Media Matters for America has noted, the context from which Hannity took those words makes clear that she was discussing views that black students who attended Princeton in the 1970s may have held, not asserting her own views.
Moreover, despite the fact that Michelle Obama wrote her thesis more than 20 years ago, Hannity asserted that "this was on the heels of her saying for the first time in her life, adult life, she was proud to be an American." Indeed, as DeGraff pointed out in response: "[T]he questions are on the heels. But the two points are actually 23 years apart."
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: They have the potential to go down in history as the country's first African-American family to occupy the White House. But if Barack Obama wins, will his legacy be positive or a negative one? And who will be the one to blame for that?
[begin video clip]
HANNITY: For both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, this has been one of the ugliest primary seasons in recent memory. Both sides have been accused of using the race card, turning what could have been a season of coming together for the Democrats into a nasty free-for-all. And while much of the attention for racial politics has been focused on the Clinton campaign, Barack Obama has waded into his own problems.
As more is learned about Barack Obama's positions, his past, and his affiliations, it seems that the "change" candidate has all the same problems with race as those before him.
Let's start off with the recent endorsement given to Barack Obama by the Nation of Islam's head, Louis Farrakhan. Now, while Obama has refused Farrakhan's support and has condemned his past anti-Semitic statements, it wasn't until Tuesday night's debate that he went as far as some would have liked in distancing himself from the man who once referred to Judaism as a gutter religion.
OBAMA: I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support.
HANNITY: And of course, we can't forget the connection that Farrakhan has to Obama's own Trinity United Church of Christ. Their minister and Obama's spiritual adviser, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, honored Farrakhan for lifetime achievement saying, quote, "He truly epitomized greatness." Now, that's in reference to the same Louis Farrakhan who once referred to the white man as the skunk of the planet Earth. So how can someone who has verbally expressed such hate for others receive such an honor? Now, this wasn't a problem created by a nasty campaign ad. Barack Obama did this to himself.
Then, there is Michelle Obama's senior thesis from Princeton University. It was 1985 and written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. The title of the paper is, quote, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." And it runs more than 60 pages long.
Michelle Obama talks about the struggle that African-Americans face integrating themselves into white society. She writes, quote, "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if to them I will always be black first and a student second." End quote.
She later goes on to say, quote, "Further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society, never becoming a full participant," end quote.
Taken in conjunction with the teachings of the Trinity United Baptist [sic] Church that some critics label as black separatist, a pattern begins to emerge. It's only fair to ask: Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?
[end video clip]
HANNITY: And joining me now is Democratic strategist Jacques DeGraff is with us. Jacques, how are you doing, man? Good to see you. We appreciate you being here. Thank you very much.
DeGRAFF: Good to be back. Thank you.
HANNITY: All right. There's concerns now that are coming up about Barack Obama. Number one, should it matter to people that Louis Farrakhan -- you know, his newspaper referred to the white man as the skunk of planet Earth, and Judaism a gutter religion -- that Barack Obama's church and pastor bestows a prestigious award on Farrakhan? Should people not be concerned about that?
DeGRAFF: They should be concerned and they should do the investigation. And when they do, they'll find that he's not soft on anti-Semitism. No one is saying that. He's denounced and rejected his endorsement. He has a record of support for Israel. He has a lot of support in the Jewish community.
HANNITY: I interviewed Dr. Jeremiah Wright. And I asked him about, you know, what they have adopted at the church, the Black Value System. And that is that, you know, commitment to the black community, the black family, the black work ethic, you know, pledge to make the fruits of developing and acquired skills available to the black community. And it goes on and on. You would admit if it was white instead of black, that that would be considered racist.
DeGRAFF: Well, no, because you can still go across America today and find segregation every Sunday morning.
HANNITY: You think that if a presidential candidate belonged to a church that had adherence to the white value system that that wouldn't be viewed as racist?
DeGRAFF: Racist means you're putting somebody down or excluding someone. There's no evidence that a white person has ever been turned away by Barack's church. In fact, the denomination that he's a part of has many white members.
HANNITY: Well, it raises other questions, too. Because the issue came up, as we all know, when we discussed about Michelle Obama. She wrote in her thesis that we see at Princeton, you know, the belief -- "because of the belief that blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." Now, this was on the heels of her saying for the first time in her life, adult life, she was proud to be an American.
DeGRAFF: No, it's not only -- the questions are on the heels. But the two points are actually 23 years apart.
HANNITY: A lot of people say, wait a minute -- what is the thought process behind, you know, these comments and this church and this value system? Why didn't he speak out against his pastor for giving Farrakhan an award?
Linden, no, I'm saying there really is no representation.
A typo I guess, possibly Freudian.
Linden, no, I'm saying there really is no representation. Is it as dramatic as Hannity wants it to be? Maybe not, but it's not by any means false.
What are you talking about? The information Hannity advanced was false.
Fact is, the Obamas have more than one association with race-focused items like Churches, theses, etc. Regardless of how badly Hannity muddles/mucks up the issue, it's no smear.
So using your "logic", and African-American who attends a predominantly black church or took a Black history course in high school has a race problem today? I was raised Catholic - that doesn't make me an anti-Semite.....
Sean Hannity has nothing on Barack Obama, so he has to resort to racial smears. He's trying to justify his own personal racism, and tell his audience that they can hate Obama because he's black, too. Conservatism os the agenda of hate, and the GOP is the Party of Hate. Sean's actions are a manifestation of that hatred.
(BTW, although I was raised Catholic, went to an all-white church and attended mostly-white schools, I voted for Barack Obama in yesterday's Texas primary and caucus.). Because I'm a liberal, and liberals do not hate people - but we DO hate what aome people do.....
It depends on what you mean by "race-problem." If you think that means (and that Hannity meant) that Obamas have a problem with white people, you're right, it's a smear. If you think it means (Hannity meant) that some voters may take issue with the fact that the Obamas, who will be EVERYONE's first couple, have associated themselves at times with very race-centric activities, I don't think that's far off OR a smear.
Snoop, of course Hannity is a biased source, and there may not be a poll to prove or disprove his or my allegations, but I think reason sheds some viability to my position, which may or may not have been Hannity's.
I think, at the very least, JFK and Romney have both experienced the same. Apparently Carter had to distance himself from the Southern Baptist Convention really quickly as well. I think McCain was so happy to get an evangelical endorsement that he didn't look closely enough at Hagee.
Why is it always a white-black issue with you, Snoop? Why couldn't it be "black" noise or "tope" noise????
hehe
If you think it means (Hannity meant) that some voters may take issue with the fact that the Obamas, who will be EVERYONE's first couple, have associated themselves at times with very race-centric activities, I don't think that's far off OR a smear.
The only people who would have a problem with that are racists/bigots. I don't think Obama wants their vote.
I love that line of thinking...anyone who has a problem with or questions about anything having to do with Obama is a bigot/racist. If you have an issue with Clinton, you're bigot/sexist. McCain, bigot/ageist (although I don't ready nearly as many defenses of the age-related smears on McCain.)
What a loaded question. My first instinct is black people, but I suppose it would be wrong to tax only black people for social services going to black people =->
I think you've missed my point a bit. My point was not that Obama has a personal problem, and I'm not saying that I or anyone else has a problem with him putting so much personal investment into that arena, but it's that, running for president of the entire USA, it's that he may have a problem with the general population (blacks, italians, pacific islanders, asians, hispanics, slavs, germans, etc...) who may view it as a precursor to concentrating on particular racial groups while in office. I'm not saying that would even happen, but it's not a completely illegitimate topic for discussion or a smear.
Dex,
I apologize, I had missed some of your point. I think churches like this are healthy because they focus on the ills of their members and society in general.
Its funny, I'm sure if you asked Hannity who should help African Americans, he would say African Americans, but that doesn't make him a separatist. But, when a church, in the African American community puts forth at least somewhat of a mission to do just that, he calls it racist.
Irony anyone?
Its ironic but that's the no-win paradox of white supremacy for you. If you refer to the whites who enslaved your race, Jim Crowed your race and disenfranchised your race as the oppressor, you're the one with a "race-problem" for the awful offense of not-concealing the identity of the oppressor. If you devote your life to helping victims of white supremacy, and after years of effort extend your service to all communities, you have a "race problem" because you served the worst sufferers of your own community first.
My God even a saint would have no patience left with these people.
Well said, Heru
I love that line of thinking...anyone who has a problem with or questions about anything having to do with Obama is a bigot/racist.
You're just like Hannity. I specifically responded to your race-centric comment and now you're spinning what I said.
And what does Hillary have to do with this?
You said there were people who had a problem with Obama's race-centric activities and I responded: those people are racists/bigots.
Conservatism os the agenda of hate, and the GOP is the Party of Hate. Sean's actions are a manifestation of that hatred. WZ
Who exactly am I supposed to hate? I can't find any of that on my Conservative ID voter card. There is a nice photo of Newt though.
Who exactly am I supposed to hate?
Just listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc. They give you explicit instructions each weekday.
Does Trent Lott work:
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
—December 5th 2002, praising Senator Strom Thurmond who ran for president in 1948 on the segregationist “Dixiecrat” ticket. [Boston Globe]
“The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy… Let’s take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!”
—Speaking in 1992 to the “Council of Concerned Citizens,” a racist organization known as the “white- collar Ku Klux Klan.” [ADL] [NY Times]
‘‘Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy.”
—1981, in a “friend-of-the-court” filing to “try to help Bob Jones University, a conservative Christian college in South Carolina, keep its tax-exempt status despite its prohibition on interracial dating.” [NY Times]
I would say that Rush toes the line when he speaks of Michael J. Fox and his illness, laughing that a caller compared Obama to Curious George, told a caller once to pull the bone out of his nose and call back.
Or this quote: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson? "
Or the term "Feminazi"
Let me guess, he is "kidding."
How about this one from Hannity:
"Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's" Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not?" or this one:
"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress."
Shall I go on?
Thank you, friedbergboy, for several shining examples of how "GOP" and "hate" go hand-in-hand. I think you shut this guy up.
:-)
Lots of toadies out there listening and buying Ruth's Chris steaks, ProFlowers arrangements, Lobstergrams...
(most often-heard ads on Hannity's radio show)
A little Ironic, Irony.
I've asked this before, and I have to ask it again. Can some Conservative please explain how market forces account for this talentless toadie having two national talk shows? I'd love to know.
I think it has more to do with Sean Hannity sucking up to the powers that be at Faux News. Who knows what he does to Roger Ailes under his desk??
(One good smear deserves another....)
Looks like Hannity's old buddy Hal Turner still has some influence on Hannity.
HANNITY: A lot of people say, wait a minute -- what is the thought process behind, you know, these comments and this church and this value system? Why didn't he speak out against his pastor for giving Farrakhan an award?
He did, Sean. Don't you read the papers?
What a maroon.....
More importantly, I don't think Obama has to say something for or against every single person associated with him everytime each one of those people say or do anything.
As an Obama supporter I have to give Hannity a pass on this topic. I mean, Hannity is a talkshow host and not a reporter. He is simply giving his opinion and making his own partisan arguments. This just seems to be the way the game is played.
Keith Olbermann gives the pro-Obama side and Hannity gives the pro-McCain side. You cannot complain about one guy while applauding the other.
Maybe the children who play at MMFA just need to start growing up a little.
NAC,
So if someone is a talk show host and not a reporter they don't have to concern themselves with facts? Really?
I'm sorry, POV, but when did I mention KO? My cable subscription doesn't get MSNBC so I don't see him often. If he has a problem with the facts, I have the same criticism.
If you are a Hannity fan, wouldn't you want your guy to be honest? I thought you conservatives had higher morals. Why would you hold Hannity to the same standards you hold KO to? I thought you guys were better than that. Am I wrong?
My cable subscription doesn't get MSNBC so I don't see him often. If he has a problem with the facts, I have the same criticism.
This comment is disengenuous at best... First, even if I take the argument seriously, the fact is that MSNBC is on almost ALL basic cable packages. So unless you have some kind of weird "lifeline emergency cable" sub package, I just find this statement a little bit hard to believe.
But more to the point - MMFA trumpets Olbermann's rehashed and warmed over MMFA-linked transmissions several times a day. So either you should "upgrade" to get MSNBC, or find some way to discuss KO since he is practically joined at the hip with MMFA.
"This comment is disengenuous at best... First, even if I take the argument seriously, the fact is that MSNBC is on almost ALL basic cable packages. So unless you have some kind of weird "lifeline emergency cable" sub package, I just find this statement a little bit hard to believe."--NAC
NAC,
Call Comcast in Boulder 303-930-2000 and ask them if MSNBC is part of their basic, non-digital package and get back to me. Call me on my bluff!
You still didn't answer why Hannity should be held to a lesser standard because he is a talk show host.
Ouch! I went to Boulder Comcast online to call your bluff (not that I doubted you). You must actually have the "Extended Basic" package - Sure enough CNN and Fox News but no MSNBC. Them Boulder politicians must hate them "liberal media" TV stations!
Nothing like a good gotcha to silence a critic! LOL
Thanks, Cleve. I hope NAC takes the time to remove his foot from his mouth and answer my question about why Hannity gets a pass.
Wow - you win! I accept that you are too cheap (or too poor) to get a decent cable package so you can watch Keith Olbermann.
Now, since you are proven to be cheap, and since you admit to be totally ignorant of Keith O., I don't see any need to discuss the merits of Hannity vs. Olbermann with you since you have absolutely no basis for
forming any reasonable opinion on the subject.
NAC,
The expanded basic package is still $50/month, I just have not had the occassion to upgrade since I work in a different city. If you misrepresentations made by KO that go to the level of the ones shown here by Hannity, I will be happy to watch both and discuss them with you.
If Olbermann blatently lies about easily discoverable information like Hannity has, I will be happy to admonish him as well. I don't think there is any excuse for lying about the things that Hannity is clearly lying about in this piece when a quick google search can find the correct answers.
Like I said, if you can find me factual misrepresentations made by KO like those made by Hannity here, I will hold KO in the same light I hold Hannity. Please share them when you find them.
As an Obama supporter I have to give Hannity a pass on this topic. I mean, Hannity is a talkshow host and not a reporter.
Bull. Sean Hannity himself promotes his radio pukefest as the most complete and accurate source for political news, and then proceeds to spew lie after lie. And many people in his audience are too dumb to realize that he's not a journalist - I guess they figure that since he works for Faux News, he's a newsman.....
It's truly amazing the lengths a conservative will go to to defend a fellow conservative.
If you think it means (Hannity meant) that some voters may take issue with the fact that the Obamas, who will be EVERYONE's first couple, have associated themselves at times with very race-centric activities, I don't think that's far off OR a smear.
What do you mean by race-centric activities?
dexteritas0071418,
Thanks for the clarification. Now, what if those same race-centric activities were put in the context of helping a group of people who have been historically mistreated, abused, discriminated, and segregated by the larger society, thus creating an inordinate level of social inequality.
I guess the point I'm getting at is this: I don't have a
problem with a President implementing policies that help to address the past effects of discrimination. Colorblind policies are not effective in that sense.
CARN,
Neither do I have a problem, in principle, with policies going toward groups who are struggling, regardless of the reason. I mentioned in a prior post that when I say "there may be a race problem" with Obama, I don't mean it like "Obama doesn't like white people" or "Obama has a personal problem", I just mean that a lot of other racial groups, struggling or doing just fine, may question Obama's ability to change gears when all of a sudden he's everybody's leader.
Dex,
Your clarification makes sense. I see Obama having no problem, but I guess I am biased.
I just mean that a lot of other racial groups, struggling or doing just fine, may question Obama's ability to change gears when all of a sudden he's everybody's leader.
I see your point. However, listening to Obama's speeches, he does recognize and highlights inequality across racial lines. He often reference inner cities as much as rural areas that have crumbling infrastructures and high levels of unemployment. I heard him talk about poor folks in South Chicago and rural Appalachia. So while some may feel that once he gets in office his sole focus will be on disenfranchised minorities, if we take him on his word, he'll look out for poor minorities AND whites. The only problem I have in all of this is that his economic advisers all appear to be center-right and the type of reform some progressives and minorities are hoping for Obama may not come to pass if he's elected. Some of his advisers are for privatizing social secret, some are lukewarm to the home mortgage crisis, and some are for more NAFTA-style free trade. The only hope one can have is that this “movement” he has inspired will hold his feet to the fire if he goes off course when rolling-over for the Republicans in the sake of “bipartisanship.”Social security, I meant to say. My bad.
I just mean that a lot of other racial groups, struggling or doing just fine, may question Obama's ability to change gears when all of a sudden he's everybody's leader.
I don't recall anyone questioning any Presidential candidate's ability to represent everybody who had served the white community. Oh yeah, I forgot, white people don't have to justify or explain serving the interest of whites, especially rich white males. That's what we're all supposed to do, so if we serve our sufferers for once, we are branded "race-centric". Reminds me of Diane Sawyre forcing Oprah to justify why she built a school for South African girls. Hey Diane, she's Black, they're Black and they needed what she was in a position to give them. Forgive us for not waiting for white racists to help us.
What a country.
Baloney. Obama continually speaks to the commonality we all share. And he's right to do so because those common ties are the foundation of the uniquely American principles of equal justice and equal opportunity.
But I get it. Obama isn't allowed to point out the failures of conservative ideology as it pertains to race. To do so questions the very questionable moral basis of conservative thinking. According to Republicans race problems just simply don't exist, but reasonable people know better. Black women are five times more likely (34.7/100,000 vs 7/100,000) than white women to be a victim of maternal death. This kind of thing doesn't just happen. This disgusting inequality is the result of the Republican inability to preserve and foster equality of justice and opportunity. In a supply side economy that caters to the needs of the well to do while telling the rest of us to work harder, get a third job if you want the good life, they say. Screw that. It's unacceptable that a person should struggle to buy food or healthcare while working a full-time job.
But we should pity guys like Sean. He can't help himself. Like so many Republicans today, he just simply lacks the morality to deal with the reality based community as an ethical actor. They, Republicans, are all basically pigs, driven by their lust to grow fatter on whatever slop their corporate strategists can conceive. It's not their fault, really. They simply have no morals, they prove it everyday that they value nothing but wins and profits.
Screw 'em. They can fade away or they get with the rest of us and work on strengthening the social contract.
Everytime I hear the lobbster gram commercials on Hannity's show I wonder, who the hell wants to cook their own lobster? Why would I want a live Lobster delivered to my door? For the price of having that done I could of went out to dinner and had someone else prepare the lobster for me. I dont get it.
Col, I suspect that Insannity... giggling and drooling... slaps Obama or Clinton bumper stickers on his lobsters just before tossing them in the boiling water.
It then becomes a case of one animal consuming a more intelligent one.
Hiya Mescal-
And don't forget, they're "Red" lobsters! Die Commie Bastards, die !!!
ThePlanner,
No one is saying you can't figure out these things without criticism. I'll ask you what I asked another poster: Who do you think should take responsibility for the issues of the African American community? If you say them, why shouldn't a church be at the forefront of this movement?
Another question for you: Is the African American community in a position to dominate the country? Do African Americans constitute a majority in this country? Do you see the difference between a "White Values" and a "Black Values" system now?
With regards to Farrakhan, check out Obama's quotes oon the man. Fact check Hannity too. He is lying here. Do your own investigation and report back. Don't count on a guy (Hannity) who has ties to one of the larger white supremacists on the East Coast (Hal Turner).
Use the internets (thanks, W) to your advantage and report back.
Planner,
I will ask you again, who should solve the problems that the African-American community faces? If you say African-Americans and then call this a racist church, not sure I can help you. White people belong to the church as well (Thank you for that point, Carn)
Here is what Obama said about Farrakhan's supposed endorsement:
Susan Davis reports on the Democratic presidential debate.
Sen. Barack Obama denounced the recent support for his candidacy expressed Sunday by controversial minister and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
“I have been very clear in my denunciation” of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Obama said at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, “I did not solicit his support.” Obama said he “can not censor” individual endorsements but said there is no affiliation with his campaign and Farrakhan. “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said, citing his support among Jewish Americans and stating that he would make it a priority to soothe historically tense ties between the African-American and Jewish communities in the nation. “I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this campaign,” he said, describing himself as a “stalwart” on supporting Israel.
Sen. Hillary Clinton suggested Obama’s comments weren’t good enough, citing her own record of rejecting controversial support in her 2000 Senate bid. “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” she countered, “And I made it very clear that I did not want their support, I rejected it,” she said, “I would not be associated with people” that make such comments.
Obama quickly responded. “I’m happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce,” he said. “Good, good,” replied Clinton.
A publication affiliated with his church gave Louis the award, how is he responsible for that?
John McCain gleefully accepted the endorsement of a known anti-Catholic which is getting very little press. Why? I would hope that you would ask the same questions of McCain. Are you? On McCain's wiki page it said he changed religions in the early 2000s from Episcopal to Baptist. Should we ask McCain to answer for all of the controversial statements made by the Southern Baptist church? In 1997, they decided to boycott Disney because the company was giving out benefits to same-sex couples. Are you demanding McCain's answer? The Baptist General Convention of Texas tells wives to "submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." Are you asking McCain to respond to that?
Also, I think a lot of people are getting rather tired of the double standard.
What you don't seem to understand is that a double standard exists because. collectively, blacks and whites have been treated differently in America and have responded differently. When blacks congregate and focus on issues in their community, it is NOT at the disparagement of whites. Apples and oranges.
The argument that it is wrong for a white person to be separatist and racist, but at the same time it is justifiable for a black person to be so, is getting rather tiresome. As I mentioned in my post, if Clinton or McCain had such a "mentor and spiritual advisor," they would not be elected dog catcher.
OK, how is Obama's church racist and separatist when WHITE PEOPLE ATTEND IT TOO? Yes, they do put an emphasis on helping the black community, empowering them, and instilling a sense of pride, but that's in the context of a group of people who has been historically discriminated against. When whites--who are the dominant majority--get together in the same way it usually ends up being the KKK or the CCC, which do disparage and reject minorities.
It is much more than just the fact that his church gave Farrakhan the award as I outlined in my post, which, by the way, you did not directly address. And, again, why criticize someone for seeking the truth regarding this issue?
Actually, Solon did address your point (as well as Fried), but you keep making the same false equivalence argument. You claim to want the truth regarding this issue, then start reading people's post carefully.
I do understand that blacks and whites have been treated differently, but I don't think that it follows from that, that black racism against whites is justifiable. And, yes, white people do attend Obama's church, but I'm not sure that is a "catch-all" defense for what appears to be a racist theology. As I'm sure you know, according to their website, they members are “unashamedly Black and unashamedly Christian,” and swear allegiance to the mother continent, Africa. Rev. Wright teaches Black Liberation Theology, which has as it's center, the ongoing struggle of the white oppressors against the black oppressed. Rev. Wright thinks about everything pretty much in terms of black versus white. He called 9/11, for example, a “wake-up call to white people.” Commenting on the recent murder of Natalie Holloway, he decried the press coverage by stating that “one 18—year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months.” Rev. Wright likes to throw around the name of James Cone a lot when it comes to his theology. James Cone is a major proponent of Black Liberation Theology. Here are just a couple of James Cone's quotes: (1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140]. (2) "It is my thesis that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ's central message to the twentieth-century America." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 1]. (3) "The most corrupting influence among the black churches was their adoption of the 'white lie' that Christianity is primarily concerned with an other world reality." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 121] ***** The focal concern or center of black theology is the white oppression of blacks. Therefore, the usual theological discussions about God, Christ, and salvation are much less relevant. Although I respect anyones right to belong to any religion they wish, this does not sound like a positive form of "Christianity" for any of those who are not members of the "chosen people." And, I think that Americans have a right to know more about Obama's religious beliefs as they may affect his judgment on important matters.
I do understand that blacks and whites have been treated differently, but I don't think that it follows from that, that black racism against whites is justifiable.
And who is suggesting that? No one here says that bigotry against whites by blacks is more acceptable than the other way around. What many have said is that Obama’s church is not racist nor does it preach a doctrine of separatism and superiority when compared to other races.
And, yes, white people do attend Obama's church, but I'm not sure that is a "catch-all" defense for what appears to be a racist theology.
That doesn’t make a bit of sense and it contradicts what you call “racist theology.” If it’s “racist theology”—racism meaning to define one’s race as genetically and intellectually superior than other races—then why are there white members? You’re speaking as if Obama’s church is nothing but an African American version of a Nazi movement. You know that’s not the case but you’re grasping for straws to make it appear that way.
As I'm sure you know, according to their website, they members are “unashamedly Black and unashamedly Christian,” and swear allegiance to the mother continent, Africa.
“Unashamedly Black and unashamedly Christian” means a different way or worship, than say, Roman Catholicism. African Americans have a unique way of worshiping in church that’s far more animated and fevorish than predominately-white churches. As for swearing allegiance to African: so what? This is not to say that members of the church refuse to consider themselves Americans first and foremost; it means that the black members—particularly those whose ancestors were slaves—remember where they come from and learn more about one’s history before the Slave Trade. There are many black people in this country who know nothing about Africa, who feel their history started in this country the moment their ancestors stepped foot onto the American soil. There’s nothing wrong with connecting back to one’s roots and learning about your ethnic/racial heritage.
Rev. Wright teaches Black Liberation Theology, which has as it's center, the ongoing struggle of the white oppressors against the black oppressed.
And is this any different than what Martin Luther King, Jr. preached in his sermons, which were a mixed of liberalism and Christianity, whose goal was to address the ongoing economic disparities of blacks in this country? Are you suggesting that blacks aren’t disproportionately disenfranchised and discriminated against because of institutionalized racism? Is black income equal to that of whites? Are black schools in urban areas as well funded as those in the suburbs?
The focal concern or center of black theology is the white oppression of blacks. Therefore, the usual theological discussions about God, Christ, and salvation are much less relevant.
A few months ago Bill Moyers had James Cone on for a full hour on The Journal where he thoroughly explained Black Theology. He’s a snippet of the two discussing historic role of lynching blacks in America after the Civil War:
JAMES CONE: That's when lynching started. They wanted to remind black people that they were in charge and that whites controlled, for the same reasons why Romans-- crucified people in the first century.BILL MOYERS: It worked, didn't it?
JAMES CONE: Yes, it worked.
BILL MOYERS: It worked.
JAMES CONE: It worked to a certain degree. It only worked in the sense that it reminded black people and white people that whites actually had political and social control and economic control. But, they didn't have control of their humanity. See, that's what religion is about. Religion is a search for meaning when you don't have it in this world. So, while they might have controlled the black people physically and politically and economically, they did not control their spirit. That's why the black churches are very powerful forces in the African American community and always has been. Because religion has been that one place where you have an imagination that no one can control. And so, as long as you know that you are a human being and nobody can take that away from you, then God is that reality in your life that enables you to know that.
You can watch the entire episoide here.
"The most corrupting influence among the black churches was their adoption of the 'white lie' that Christianity is primarily concerned with an other world reality."
Well considering that many slave masters used Christianity as a justification to enslave blacks and judge them as subhuman, it's no surprise that once blacks were freed they were free to interpret Christianity in a way to give meaning and understanding to THEIR lives. Slave masters after all taught blacks that it was in God's plan for blacks to serve the superior -- i.e., white -- race because of blacks’ inferiority. Black theology, more than anything, was a way to break the psychological chains of slavery, which were more damaging to one's spirits than physical abuse.