Dio, The preferred term is “Jew-liker.” It’s just less awkward socially.
Err, seriously, some leftists do use Zionist as a loaded word, but many of the people using it that way are Jews and there is not necessarily any anti-Semitic character.
Dutchman: Here and here. Okay, I admit, the first time I only said it wasn’t racist and didn’t technically ask for you to explain why it was racist, but I did kinda think you’d respond.
Depends how it’s used.
from WikCertain individuals and groups have used the term “Zionism” as a pejorative to justify attacks on Jews. According to historians Walter Laqueur, Howard Sachar and Jack Fischel among others, in some cases, the label “Zionist” is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism.[10]
You can judge Wright’s words as you see fit. I’m not going to argue whether you see it that way.
Let;s change the context to politics. Would it be possible for you to disavow somethings that an elected official (say a President) does or says and yet still vote for him for reelection? Would it be possible for you to disagree with or disavow a party leader yet still want to be a member of the party?
Are you still ignoring on purpose that like in a Catholic Church he is not the only preacher there?
And yours does… on second thought yours means less because it is clear the sources you are getting the information from are misleading.
Since I see that McCain has not many problems defending its yahoo preacher I already see evidence that your positions have no sense of proportion.
It is still demanding something that was never demanded from McCain or Bush.
Some other well known members of this multi-racial United Churches of Christ:
Daniel Akaka, William Sloane Coffin, Andrew Young, Julian Bond, Howard Dean, Bob Graham, Paul Tillich, the United States Poet Laureate and many Pulitzer Prize winning writers.
The motto of the denomination is That all may be one..
Ministers speak to members of the congregation but not for members of the congregation.
It’s all there in the link.
The congregation that Osama belongs to is primarily African-American. There are approximately 10,000 members. The Rev. Wright announced his retirement as pastor early in 2008. The new minister will be the Rev. Moss.
Just because a denomination supports tearing down the walls that separate Palestinians and Jews does not mean that they are anti-Semitic. They support peace.
This is not anti-white, anti-Israel, a dancing frenzy, or a twist on a KKK rally. This is a minister speaking about America’s own violent past and our failure to accept responsibility for that violence. We see it in the enemy, but we don’t see it in our own natures. He isn’t speaking for Obama, but he makes a lot of sense to me.
That’s why neo-cons tolerate Gitmo and torture and holding people without trials. They are violent men.
Well I just thought it was extremely racist. Jesus wasn’t even white in his world.
In any case, I’d like to report, no matter how damaging the Wright controversy may be for Obama, it actually resulted in changing my mind as to who should be the next president.
I was watching Obama’s reply on the issue to Anderson Cooper tonight as well as commentary on black churches in America by David Gergen and the black Chicago newspaperman pundit. Its a long story and I’m too tired to elaborate, but I now see Obama as the reincarnation of Martin Luther King Jr. and the man who will go a long way to secure King’s dream. You’re lucky to find these guys once in a lifetime.
Jesus wasn’t white as a matter of historical fact. He wasn’t black either as Wright claims, but I think he might have been speaking metaphorically, there…or mybe not, but either way, Jesus was of a Middle Eastern ethnicity, not a white European one.
Although it wasn’t anything to be proud of, it wasn’t quite that simple or ugly. It was good to know that even the Rev. Graham could make an ass of himself. He has continued to apologize for his remarks.
Well, I always thought Jews come in black and white.
Here’s the problem: if Dukakis’ campaign could be derailed by a picture of him riding in a tank, if Kerry could lose because of the Swift Boat ads and the windsurfing picture… how do you think the phrase “God damn America” from Obama’s 20 year spiritual mentor will fly?
I don’t necessarily think this is fair; nor do I think that Obama necessarily condones these comments from Reverend Wright. But if the post-racial candidate is closely linked to someone who clearly has views that middle America finds repugnant, that’s a problem.
Imagine if Clinton had a mentor that railed against patriarchy and made statements, based in truth but yet hyperbolic, about the responsibility of men in promoting sexism. For anyone feeling even slightly uneasy about voting for a woman, it makes her gender quite visible. It would definitely sink her.
Obama has much more resilience, so I don’t see it as a death knell. But for those voters who see him as a post-racial figure, and I am certain that a goodly amount of his support comes from voters who really don’t want to see Obama mired in issues of race have noticed this. They are reminded that yes, he identifies as a Black American, and the 20 year relationship suggests some alignment or tacit endorsement of Wright’s views.
I think that is how the electorate will largely see this. I think Obama handled this about as well as he could, but it’s going to hurt his appeal with the casually engaged electorate. I truly believe that he successfully has run as a “raceless” candidate to date, but that designation is gone now.
Forget Obama. Put this guy up as the Democratic candidate and I’ll canvas the streets myself.
And your suggestion of a replacement is?
Continued to apologize? He lied about making that statement for decades until the tape came out several years ago. Then he gave a mealy mouthed apology.
Freudian slip, anyone? 
I’m not so sure this is as innocent or harmless as some people think. You can’t analyze this in a rational, intellectual way, but how it will play out in the press and on the campaign trail. Anyone looking at the Swift Boater’s claims rationally and intellectually would have said they wouldn’t make any difference. This calls into question the types of people Obama will let into his circle of advisers, and it’s not good. I’m sure it won’t scare off any die hard Obama supporters, but it might very well rally the die hard conservatives in a way that even Hillary couldn’t.
We need to see how this plays out. I’d be surprised if it just blows over without consequences. Hillary is smiling right now.
Most controversies that sink campaigns do so because they reinforce a narrative that is already out there and involve the candidate themself. People already though Kerry was a sissy coward traitor. While some people buy into the Obama secret muslim who hates America thing, it is too outlandish for most to buy. Plus, Obama has been far more proactive in combating these things. Additionally, McCain really can’t gain traction on this considering he has been actively courting similarly controversial figures.
GIGO, Dio, and the other Obama backers have made some good debating points, but politics is more about perception than logic. This is disastrous for Obama’s perception among white middle Americans.
Now that I’ve looked into it in more detail, Obama’s relationship with Wright approaches that of father/son, or at least doting uncle/nephew. Wright performed Obama’s marriage ceremony. Wright baptized Obama’s two children. They’ve been close associates for twenty years.
Why did Obama maintain such a long term, close relationship with someone he profoundly disagreed with? The only answer is that he doesn’t really disagree with Wright that profoundly.
Obama certainly has the right to believe and worship as he wishes. Still, these are views that are entirely out of sync with mainstream America. They’re the views of a left wing, Ivy League law professor. You know, the views that have kept middle Americans voting repeatedly against the Democrats for the past several decades.
If it is atypical, why does it appear that everyone in the congregation is cheering Wright’s crazy-ass statements? I am not a regular church goer, but I do know a lot of people that go to the church I used to attend and if the minister started saying that the government invented HIV or knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor beforehand, he would not get cheered. Do you think it is just a coincidence that congregation is made-up of people that will cheer on statements like the government created HIV or do you think that something about the church is attracting them? Maybe a pastor that preaches black liberal theology?
Well, by that metric, this issue certainly reinforces the idea that Obama isn’t as American and wholesome as apple pie. I can easily see people connecting the dots (as stupid as it might be, I think it will happen):
“Let’s see… he’s got that funny name… he grew up in Indonesia… he doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin… doesn’t do the national anthem… and he’s got a pastor who hates White people.”
Forget the careful analysis and even the legitimate perspectives that Wright might have. This is another example of the two thrusts of the Obama campaign being contradicted: judgment and a “different kind of politics.” If you have a 20 year relationship with a guy indicted for financial shenanigans, and you admit that some of your dealings were “boneheaded,” it doesn’t help that you’re just now disclosing that he contributed even more money than thought before. And it doesn’t help that your disclosure has been more of the “drip drip” variety rather than, “I’m a new kind of politician, and I’m putting it all out there, today, right now.”
If you have a 20 year relationship with a controversial preacher - and it is not a relationship that you can typically disavow - this guy married you, baptized your kids, mentored you, and even gave you the name of your most famous book. And you claim that you didn’t know that he had used such fiery rhetoric, and you don’t distance yourself from him until you’re “caught” by the media - that certainly doesn’t speak to your superior judgment. Especially with the crossover voters that you’ve been trying to court.
And it points out a level of hypocrisy: the candidate who is post-racial, who is a uniter actually is mentored by a fellow who is clearly mired in the racial dynamics of the 1960s, who feels free to employ divisive rhetoric. That’s how I see this causing problems for Obama.
McCain doesn’t have anything close to this problem. He’s used pretty strong language to denounce the fiery ministers on the right. The Hagee thing is analogous to the Farrakhan thing for Obama, which didn’t really hurt him at all.
No, that is not “the only answer.” I have a handful of people I maintain close relationships with yet disagree with on a lot of issues. Relationships are not solely based on sharing common beliefs. They can be based on history, blood ties, even geographical origins, depending on the culture. Diogenes made a fair point about Catholics who disagree with a lot of what the Vatican says nowadays yet still identify with the church. There are many, many Catholics out there who are pro-choice and practice birth control, yet still consider themselves part of the church. Hell, there are plenty of Democrats - and Republicans - that disagree with their party on some major issues (gay rights, for example) yet still identify as Democrat/Republican.
If you’re saying that the majority of voters will think that Obama hasn’t cut off relations with Wright because “he doesn’t really disagree with Wright that profoundly,” that’s a different story, but it sounds like you’re saying there’s no other possible explanation for Obama’s relationship with Wright. And that’s simply not true.
How many of these Catholics chose to join the Catholic Church as adults? How many of them describe their priests as their mentors?