Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?

[modestyblase]

As I've said before, liberals/fascists out there have a literal cow when a Republican speaks at Bob Jones University. To liberals/fascists being there equates to chaining Black man to your bumper and dragging him to his death. In this case, a ultra liberal Black man belongs to a church who's leader espouses all kinds of racist ideals and this is a non issue. Remember know, the Republican speaking at Bob Jones U isn't on the board, didn't attend the University. Barrack Hussein Obama BELONGS to this Church. If he disagreed with it's teachings, he could leave. That's the nice thing about being a Protestant. You can fire the preacher, start your own church, or attend one with a less racist pastor. But Barrak Hussein Obama has belonged to this particular Church for 20 YEARS.

Does the Democratic hopeful agree with his pastor? Of course he does. If he doesn't, why is he still a parishoner?

AGREED. I've pointed that out to several people-why the fuck isn't this an issue, when for a republican candidate it would be?! Combine this with his lackluster "career", and the man disturbs me.

[Michael Tee]

<<And.....................?  Provides squat to your accusation of some mass of folks condemning all muslims, by virture of referencing some "crazed" religious leader>>


This'll take some time.  This thread started off with a smear of Obama and I was looking for similar smears to the Wright-Farrakhan smear.  I lost sight of the fact that somewhere in the thread I broadened the smear technique's use by referring to its use in smearing all Muslims.  I had no problem finding similar smears of Obama (at least three in the past few days just in this NG) but smears of Muslims generally, I'll have to look further afield.

[Michael Tee]

<<Or is your point that the Audience of Pat Robertson is more civilized than the audience of the radical Muslims?
<<Such that equal exhortation is not required to achieve equivalent frenzy?>>

More civilized?  Whooah, plane, I would never go there.  Considering that that Persian civilization is measured in millennia and yours in centuries, I would not want to be the judge of who is the more civilized.

No, my point is simply that there are differences in culture, such that a word or phrase in one culture might have a totally different effect in the other.  As an example, Ahmadinejad's speech about Israel vanishing from the pages of history interpreted in the U.S.A. as a call to genocide.  What sounds crazy to them might not sound so crazy to us and vice versa.

[Plane]

<<Or is your point that the Audience of Pat Robertson is more civilized than the audience of the radical Muslims?
<<Such that equal exhortation is not required to achieve equivalent frenzy?>>

More civilized?  Whooah, plane, I would never go there.  Considering that that Persian civilization is measured in millennia and yours in centuries, I would not want to be the judge of who is the more civilized.

No, my point is simply that there are differences in culture, such that a word or phrase in one culture might have a totally different effect in the other.  As an example, Ahmadinejad's speech about Israel vanishing from the pages of history interpreted in the U.S.A. as a call to genocide.  What sounds crazy to them might not sound so crazy to us and vice versa.

No Persian I have heard of is millenia old , rather they have a government formed within my own memory and a population whose advradge age is half my age.
The Christian meme is two millinia old, a half millinia older than the Muslim . The Democracy meme might be the origional condition of man, who knows?
That Iranian exicutions are frequent and are usually done by slow hanging for strangulation strikes me as a sort of wild west sort of justice , I reaise we are only a century advanced from the wild west ourselves but that is a cetury of the same system undergoing self improvement.  The Iranian government is too young to have improved itself that much.

[Michael Tee]

<<That Iranian exicutions are frequent and are usually done by slow hanging for strangulation strikes me as a sort of wild west sort of justice  . . . >>

That's very true, but our original comparison was not between governments but between AUDIENCES.  You wanted to know if I felt that Pat Robertson's audience was more "civilized" than Persian audiences.  Pat Robertson is a man who advocates assassination of foreign leaders as politics, invasion of other countries as foreign policy and believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing America for its tolerance of homosexuality.  His followers probably still drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flags flying and I've never once heard him speak out against torture.  I have no evidence to indicate that his audience is any more appalled by tortures that are worse than slow strangulation and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to which audience is more evil and vicious than the other.   Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to.

[sirs]

<<And.....................?  Provides squat to your accusation of some mass of folks condemning all muslims, by virture of referencing some "crazed" religious leader>>

I lost sight of the fact that somewhere in the thread I broadened the smear technique's use by referring to its use in smearing all Muslims.  I had no problem finding similar smears of Obama but smears of Muslims generally, I'll have to look further afield.

We'll all wait patiently to back up that asanine allegation, then

[Cynthia]

M-tee:

"Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to."

Having lived in the world for a longer time does't equate to being civilized or automatically owning the title of civility.

Are you saying the Persian culture ---old as it is and having had more experiences of living together in units of family or tribe is somehow NOT as EVIL compared to  the Anglo Saxon culture?

Developed seems to be the key word here.
Mainly developed?. . you would think it makes for better, kinder, gentler, more civilized, and less evil.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Are you saying the Persian culture ---old as it is and having had more experiences of living together in units of family or tribe is somehow NOT as EVIL compared to  the Anglo Saxon culture?>>

No, really, I was just thinking of ways in which the same words or conduct would be perceived differently depending on whether they were displayed in the one culture or the other.  plane asked if I thought a Persian audience would be more or less civilized than a Pat Robertson audience, and I actually wanted to pass on deciding which audience would be more civilized.  The Persians obviously had a head start, but that's not to say that a later-coming civilization couldn't make faster progress, catch up and surpass the older one.  I just did not know, so I didn't feel I had the right or the knowledge to decide.

I think both cultures have enormous capacities for evil - - you can just look at the tortures in the Persian prison system, especially under the Shah and now too in the Islamic Republic.  Teenage homosexuals publicly hanged from cranes.  Jeeziz.   But you can look at the slave trade, slavery, lynch mobs and the killing of millions of Vietnamese, the tortures of Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam, etc. in America.   Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over two hundred years, the U.S. seems to average an invasion every two or three years.

 I think the extent to which a culture leaves cruelty and violence behind is one measure of civilization, obviously, but there are other measures - - the advancement of knowledge, of the arts, of manners (in France, almost everyone is addressed as Sir or Madam, particularly strangers, here it's a special sign of good upbringing if the practice is followed) and even in forms of speech.  Civilization is just a lengthy build-up of days and months and years lived as a culture.  What happened, what's to show for it?

[Cynthia]

Nice post, M-tee....good read.


The human is capable of evil-- pure and simple. To what extent the human exercises the power to break through the barrier, or to cross the line from good to evil, can't always be compared or precisely measured. ....and of course that crossing line, comparison, or measure of evil depends on many factors:

 Sure the Shah was a bad dude, but to say that he was "especially so"..in terms of brutality seems to be saying that the Shah was the worse of two evils. Maybe...but, one who has a bias against someone like the Shah or of  the current regime doesn't matter.....killing for evil reasons is still killing!  Killing is permanent! Dead is dead. Intent in in the eye of the beholder. Thus our board rallies to discuss which one is more or less justified. You think that Americans have more of an evil intent...as do others....in terms of the Iraqi war...and in terms of invading other countries. But, are we more evil? I don't think so.

Seems that in this world of constant wrestling for power ....which is the bottom line in any civilization, evil is going to be used to describe anyone who kills...........
Someone in the world has to be a powerful one.

I have to wonder if Iran, Iraq, or Cuba had the chance to be the "powerful one"....would we be even having this discussion.

[Michael Tee]

I'm starting to get the feeling that morality is a competition.  America might be acting real bad, but then that's OK because someone else is just as bad.  or worse.  And of course if you condemn anything bad that America does, you're "an America hater" because you didn't point out everyone else who is worse.  Or who someone else claims is worse.

Or looked at from another POV, I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country.  Being evil today just ain't no big deal.  So then the discussion comes to revolve around which country is more evil than which other country.  Not only do such discussions seem empty and pointless in themselves, but they frequently take on a "Joe Louis could have beaten Rocky Marciano" quality of comparison of hypotheticals, of how evil Cuba WOULD be if Cuba had the power of the U.S.A.

Then there is this theory that somebody has to be top dog.  WHY?  Why does America have to rank anywhere?  Top, bottom, first, third?  What is the point?  England used to be No. 1.  Now she's not.  Blew everything in the war trying to stay top dog, and had to cede pride of place to the U.S., then Russia, now soon China.  What does it matter to the average Englishman or Englishwoman?  Are they moping around all day moaning Awww shit, our navy used to be the biggest and now it's not? They've got their land, their lives and their jobs. 

[Cynthia]

I'm starting to get the feeling that morality is a competition.  America might be acting real bad, but then that's OK because someone else is just as bad.  or worse.  And of course if you condemn anything bad that America does, you're "an America hater" because you didn't point out everyone else who is worse.  Or who someone else claims is worse.

Or looked at from another POV, I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country.  Being evil today just ain't no big deal.  So then the discussion comes to revolve around which country is more evil than which other country.  Not only do such discussions seem empty and pointless in themselves, but they frequently take on a "Joe Louis could have beaten Rocky Marciano" quality of comparison of hypotheticals, of how evil Cuba WOULD be if Cuba had the power of the U.S.A.

Then there is this theory that somebody has to be top dog.  WHY?  Why does America have to rank anywhere?  Top, bottom, first, third?  What is the point?  England used to be No. 1.  Now she's not.  Blew everything in the war trying to stay top dog, and had to cede pride of place to the U.S., then Russia, now soon China.  What does it matter to the average Englishman or Englishwoman?  Are they moping around all day moaning Awww shit, our navy used to be the biggest and now it's not? They've got their land, their lives and their jobs. 

But MTee, someone is always going to be top dog. I am not saying that there's anything wrong with being middle or bottom dog.

America could be middle on many levels.  Sure, America should not invade other nations without a really good reason...I agree, I am also saying, however, that some nations are bent on supression and brutally---i.e. beheading women for wearing makeup. If that nation were to suddenly strike oil and produce a military to die from.... I sure as heck wouldn't want them top dog anything.

The degree to which a country flexes such muscles is the danger here. Sure, our nation has made mistakes....but the issue of civility comes to mind here. If a top dog country rises to the top militarily, economically or otherwise and has the power to enforce it's beliefs and morals such as Iraq, I'd take American morals anyday.

[sirs]

I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country.  Being evil today just ain't no big deal.  

I think you can attribute that to calling any and everything that doesn't agree with your myopically skewed view of what is, is, and what the war in Iraq is supposedly all about, as being some fascist, torture-loving, Bush sychophant.  That kind of repetative idiocy tends to degrade the senses to real evil, real fascists, real hatred.  A little like the crying wolf phenomenon

You want to call Amerikkka evil Tee, you go right ahead.....knock your socks off.  All the while those countries and entities volitionally performing true acts of evil enjoy your brushing right over them, in order to perpeutate your irrational hatred of this country.  Not that it would matter to them, they'd kill you and your family in a heartbeat, and not think twice, so no worries.  Please, continue with your Amerikkka & Bush is the epitome of evil rant

[Cynthia]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/02/07/damon.iraq.taliban.state.cnn

I guess I would rather be free to wear a bit of blush....but that's just me.

Cindy

[Xavier_Onassis]

I hardly think that the US is deliberately evil. The Iraq War was a stupid move to secure oil reserves that has resulted in nearly 4,000 dead Americans and LOTS more dead and displaced Iraqis, and many more maimed and displaced people and ruined lives. And these results are easily described as evil.

The US is number one in the minds of many Americans as the 'best country on Earth'. It has been my experience that the more a person has traveled and/or lived abroad, the less one hears this. Such travel experiences as package tours and cruises do not seem to produce this more measured view of the world, but that may be because people who like to be catered to are not of the sort than tries to delve too deeply into the ways that other cultures function.

Probably most Americans will feel most comfortable living in the US. But other countries have higher per capita income, more cultural phenomena (plays, museums, galleries, tours, historical monuments), and less materialistic people.

I always had a LOT more fun at parties with my Mexican friends than I had in the US with American friends. Mexicans are better at having fun pretty much anywhere. I have not lived in Argentina or Spain long enough to make a comparison, but I suspect that the same is true there.

A good meal in a Spanish restaurant is more enjoyable to me, as is the conversation. No one does seafood beter than the Spanish. Their tomatos and oranges outshine all others by far, and keep in mind that I live in Florida.

No one even comes close to Argentina for any sort of beef: steaks, sausages, sweetmeats, whatever. I would like to try some Argentine steak with some Kansas City barbecue sauce, though.

[Michael Tee]

<<I guess I would rather be free to wear a bit of blush....but that's just me. >>

I wonder if you realize that under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the religious fundamentalists had no role in making the rules, the women of Iraq were not only free to wear lipstick, make-up, skirts and high heels, but women in headscarves were suspected of religious fundamentalism and ran the risk of attracting negative government attention.

So if you like wearing "a bit of blush," then the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party is the party for you.  It was pretty good at keeping religion out of the government.