danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, and Danny boy--why not just change your Avatar's name to "me too."

I nicknamed him Pyotr.

On . . . Easter Sunday. And, he mentions it "a couple of times in a decade?" You know this how? Scoured the archives, have you?

Was he actually telling his congregation to kill whitey? Or was he challenging the comfortable myth that the USA has no problems with race relations?

When your obsession with me is such that you can only snipe and not provide any original thoughts, it's pretty obvious your therapist is on vacation.

when you bother to construct an argument that's not just a standard right wing talking point, and when you concede that Obama did reach out and talk about Christianity at an Easter-based event this year, contrary to your earlier assertions, then you can criticise my style with impunity.

I did not say what you said I said.

You have no basis for your certain assertions.

Done.

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't really care that Obama didn't put out an Easter proclamation. What I find interesting is that no effort is spared to reach out to the Islamic world, including issuing proclamations for many Muslim holidays, but Obama isn't so much interested in reaching out to Christians. Whatever.

Christians aren't threatening to bomb us into oblivion because they don't like the way we run things. Bush also made an out-sized effort to connect with Muslims. The idea is to help them see that we're not antagonistic to their religion. It's a smart thing to do. The Prez, by comparison, ignores Hinduism, Jain, Zoroastrianism, etc. That doesn't mean squat about his own religious beliefs.

You keep saying this is about Smith and not the Prez but that's absurd. And it's absurd to think that Obama would be so stupid as to attend a church where he expected anti-white racism to be preached from the pulpit. He hardly ever goes to church. Do you think he just needed a good dose of racism this Easter and said to himself, "So what if voters see me as a racist anti-white anti-Christian closet-Muslim anti-American hateful despicable person, I need my dose of despicable anti-white racism."

Obama has faults. They are not the ones on which you concentrate. You find and spread, with little concern for the facts, the most simplistic and low criticisms possible. It may be good politics, though I hope not. It's not good citizenship.

Minister X wrote:[You keep saying this is about Smith and not the Prez but that's absurd. And it's absurd to think that Obama would be so stupid as to attend a church where he expected anti-white racism to be preached from the pulpit. He hardly ever goes to church. Do you think he just needed a good dose of racism this Easter and said to himself, "So what if voters see me as a racist anti-white anti-Christian closet-Muslim anti-American hateful despicable person, I need my dose of despicable anti-white racism."

Obama has faults. They are not the ones on which you concentrate. You find and spread, with little concern for the facts, the most simplistic and low criticisms possible. It may be good politics, though I hope not. It's not good citizenship.

It's absurd? I'm not the one who went there. I have no explanation for it. I don't have to explain it. I'm not the President. I'm not the one who is supposed to be the Great Uniter.

Here's what I think we will find out over the next few days--anyone who cared would have been able to easily find out what sort of message Smith was likely to "preach."

Hey, you're more than welcome to call me a bad citizen. This is America. You have every right . . . to be wrong. You've jumped about thirty feet of logic, but that's your right.

I don't engage in birtherism, Islamic-linking of the President. I am not claiming any of those things. I don't believe those things. I just don't get why a man with his background--20 years in a vitriol-spewing church that was so bad he eventually was forced (yes, politically) to disavow his pastor--would go to a church that was anything but bland. If questioning that makes me a bad citizen, then sign me up for Gitmo.

Oh, so this entire thread is simply an inquiry into his political acumen and/or ability to research pastoral habits? Then why in your very first sentence talk about "question[ing] his beliefs"?

Doctor Fate wrote:I did not say what you said I said.

Ahh, but did you type what I typed you'd typed?

Post 1 wrote:And, I understand he has never failed to issue a statement on a Muslim holiday, but nothing on Easter? Interesting behavior for a Christian. He also has issued messages to, for example, Iran on the occasion of Muslim holidays.

You may be pedantic and claim that was a question, but it looks rhetorical at best, and includes certain asserted assumptions, that Obama says something on every Muslim holiday and said nothing on Easter.

Post 7 wrote:In all likelihood, this would be left to a staffer. Of course, the fact that the staffer would prioritize Muslim holidays and forget about Easter says something, doesn't it?

Again you are running with the idea that nothing happened for Easter, with all kinds of theories as to why Obama might choose to employ a staffer who would 'forget' about what last weekend was.

I suppose again you could suggest that this was merely a question and not a statement, but again it's a question that is rendered nonsensical if the assumptions implicit ad explicit within it are false.

You have no basis for your certain assertions.

Sure, Steve. Only what you've written.

Done.

Indeed. Hoist by your own petard, as it were.

You even started with the classic victim card "Oh, we aren't allowed to question Obama, because people will start pointing out the huge gaping holes in our arguments and if we get our victim's cloaks on early, we can be ready to respond with more howling about how you can't say anything about Obama lest the forces of liberalism destroy us".

Sure, you can't say anything. Which is why you were able to come on to a publicly accessible web forum, type up your screed and have not yet been bagged and bound for Gitmo on suspicion of sedition and treason. You are allowed to question Obama's faith. We are allowed to question your motives and your approach.

Myself, I was assuming what Steve had posted was correct and Obama said nothing about Easter. While it was almost nothing (at a breakfast only) it was still covered and yes he made mention of the holiday. I'm fine with that, I was fine with the pastors statements (not a fan of him or his positions maybe but it wasn't a horrible hateful type of sermon like that old pastors "God damn America" sermon, I'm sure I can find fault in things said at my own church from time to time). To me, this is now nothing but partisan politics trying to smear the president. I am no fan of Obama, I think we have plenty of real things to accuse him of without "inventing" such nonsense. Time to move on to real issues and drop the phony ones, when you attempt to smear the President with such minor "issues" then the real ones are simply assumed to yet more politics as normal, like the boy who cried wolf.

Tom

While it was almost nothing (at a breakfast only)

Would Brunch have been better?

Better yet, how about a last supper?

I meant it was not a broadcast of any sort, not a real speech or radio address. It's fine as is, I do not expect more, only saying it was nothing widely known and maybe we can forgive Steve for this portion? His hammering away at the faith issues and his constant changing of the goalposts is pure partisan politics however. We get it, Steve doesn't like the guy (nor do I) but stick to issues that really issues and not invent new ones.

Minister X wrote:Oh, so this entire thread is simply an inquiry into his political acumen and/or ability to research pastoral habits? Then why in your very first sentence talk about "question[ing] his beliefs"?

Guh.

Don't stop at the first sentence. Take in a few, then see what I am saying:

Yes, I remember--no one's allowed to question his beliefs. That's fine. I guess.

However, I did think that once he disowned his "mentor," Jeremiah Wright, he would move on past churches that only discussed social issues and racial issues. I guess I was wrong. This is from the Easter message at the church President Obama now attends.

If I was "questioning his beliefs," I would outline what Obama's beliefs were. Instead, I question his attending a church wherein certain topics seem to be the focus. It seems very clear to me that his judgment in this matter is suspect.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I did not say what you said I said.

Ahh, but did you type what I typed you'd typed?

No, but honesty has never been your strong point.

Post 1 wrote:And, I understand he has never failed to issue a statement on a Muslim holiday, but nothing on Easter? Interesting behavior for a Christian. He also has issued messages to, for example, Iran on the occasion of Muslim holidays.

You may be pedantic and claim that was a question, but it looks rhetorical at best, and includes certain asserted assumptions, that Obama says something on every Muslim holiday and said nothing on Easter.

And, I was right. The post you made of his Tuesday "Easter" breakfast was not an official proclamation/press release.

Post 7 wrote:In all likelihood, this would be left to a staffer. Of course, the fact that the staffer would prioritize Muslim holidays and forget about Easter says something, doesn't it?

Again you are running with the idea that nothing happened for Easter, with all kinds of theories as to why Obama might choose to employ a staffer who would 'forget' about what last weekend was.

Not implying anything insidious about Obama, but about the priorities of his staff--admittedly, those priorities flow from him, but he's not handling things like that.

You even started with the classic victim card

Not even close. What happens whenever anything about his personal history or philosophy are raised? Cries of intolerance, racism, birtherism, whatever. Of all men to ever be President, for some reason, this one is the first to walk on water--after causing the rising tides to recede (of course).

You are allowed to question Obama's faith. We are allowed to question your motives and your approach.

Fine, but do try to be honest. It would be so . . . unexpected.

GMTom wrote:Me too!!

Can't argue with that.

Me too?
Not quite, The "Me too" seems to me more a case of you listening to the radio and tv talk show idiots who are the ones trying to make an issue out of this. I have said this is a non-issue and have accused you of creating something out of vapor, there's nothing there yet you changed your position in order to make the accusation relevant, nope, it's non relevance should be dropped and moved on to a real issue. I agree with you more often than not Steve, but this one, you sound like some of our liberal pals here who refuse to admit they were wrong and hammer away on nonsense as they change the goalposts. Be above this and accept your position may not be on as firm a footing as you originally thought.

...me too?
good lord not even close.

GMTom wrote:Me too?
Not quite, The "Me too" seems to me more a case of you listening to the radio and tv talk show idiots who are the ones trying to make an issue out of this.

Oh, it's "me too." MX and Danivon misrepresented what I said and you said "me too."

Let me be succinct:

1. The President has a history of attending a church that is known for its racially-based anger.
2. When choosing a church to attend on Easter, the most significant holiday in the Christian faith, the President chose a church where the pastor made race an issue. On Easter.
3. At best, that's bad advance work.
4. When I said "I remember--no one's allowed to question his beliefs," I was saying his religious views and practices seem to be off limits to any criticism or critical analysis. If someone does this, it sets off vitriolic responses.
5. Some people might be perfectly comfortable with the integration of race and religion. To me, as I understand the Bible, race is a non-issue. There is no difference between image-bearers on the basis of skin tone.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, but honesty has never been your strong point.

I can read though. So can Tom.

And, I was right. The post you made of his Tuesday "Easter" breakfast was not an official proclamation/press release.

Not a press release? Really? That's odd. I follow Min X's link about the Easter breakfast. It's on the White House website (so I guess it's a bit official), it's in the 'Press Office' section, and it starts:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

Looks like a Press Release to me. Looks like it's official notice of a speech made by the President. It is during the Holy Week (which, as you would know, starts with Palm Sunday and ends at Easter), and you are simply trying to wriggle out of your own position.

Not implying anything insidious about Obama, but about the priorities of his staff--admittedly, those priorities flow from him, but he's not handling things like that.

Yeah, right. How about you just work on the Trump campaign team? They need the moderating influence...

You even started with the classic victim card

Not even close. What happens whenever anything about his personal history or philosophy are raised? Cries of intolerance, racism, birtherism, whatever. Of all men to ever be President, for some reason, this one is the first to walk on water--after causing the rising tides to recede (of course).

Has anyone accused you of those things? Nope. We've noted that you are grasping to find ways to smear the President, and I for one have never said he's perfect (I did write a post before his inauguration saying that I thought rather too much hope had been invested in someone who is no more or less human than anyone else). The only person saying you can't say what you are saying is you. You just think that disagreement and disapproval are equivalent to censorship when directed at you, which seems to me to be a classic victim play.

Now, as to your alleged only focus, the pastor, I'm not at all surprised that a pastor in the USA might mention race and racism. A recent poll suggested that in some parts of the USA significant minorities would support a law banning mixed race marriages. The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and the Civil Rights struggle has not disappeared, and there will always be people, unfortunately, who judge by race, and there will still be some of those people who, even if they are unconsciously doing it, who have power and influence.

Is the Easter story nothing about race, ever, ever? It's about the sacrifice of Christ for all of our sins, and there are plenty of sins that we can talk about. There is the issue of Christian anti-semitism, which is a form of racism, and which is linked to the story of Easter by the blood libel. There is the story of Passover, which is also closely linked to Easter.

You complain (erroneously) that what you want to say is being censored. But what is it when you try and proscribe what a pastor says in his own church?

And vitriol? What 'vitriol'? You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being contradicted, and being subjected to a vicious attack. You poor lamb.

danivon wrote:Is the Easter story nothing about race, ever, ever? It's about the sacrifice of Christ for all of our sins, and there are plenty of sins that we can talk about. There is the issue of Christian anti-semitism, which is a form of racism, and which is linked to the story of Easter by the blood libel. There is the story of Passover, which is also closely linked to Easter.

Jesus' Jewishness was front and central in the crucifixion when 'Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS'. He was certainly using the opportunity to display Roman dominance. Status, ethnicity, and gender were big issues in the NT, of course these things should continue to be discussed and considered among followers of Jesus.