Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditOn Monday the New York Times reported that the percentage of black Americans who believe race relations in America are generally good has doubled since July. This statistic forces me to ask: why are African Americans feeling so good about our country in a time of economic crisis and international conflict?
It is not just the fact of a black president. Instead, with everyone analyzing the 100-day mark of Obama's administration, I think the answer lies in understanding this historic moment through a black cultural lens. I believe African Americans are feeling racially optimistic because they respect how our first Brother President is handling his business. Not all black people of course; there is a group clamoring for "accountability." But the polls are clear that most black people remain enthusiastic supporters of this president.
In January Obama kicked things off with the ultimate political party. African Americans stood with numb fingers and toes on the National Mall to watch a day we never thought would come. Obama had Mary J. Blige singing on the weekend, Aretha in her Sunday-going-to-meeting-hat celebrating on Tuesday morning, and Beyonce serenading on Tuesday night. It was an unrivaled R&B trifecta, challenging even the Essence festival.
But the best part of January 20th was that Barack and Michelle got out of the bulletproof, blac Cadillac and walked the streets...and no one shot at them. I know we are not allowed to say it, but one reason black people believe that race relations have improved in America is because Barack lived through the primaries, the election, the inauguration, and now through 100 days.
Not only has he survived it; this man has been busy. Obama immediately threw open the doors to the federal government creating the most transparent and internet searchable administration in our history. He quickly ordered the closure of Guantanamo. Both acts resonated with black Americans who have often been most brutally impacted by unfair criminal practices and covert, domestic, government surveillance. Obama signed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and imposed a cap on executive pay for banks receiving TARP funds. These policies of wage fairness were immediate signals of substantive change for black Americans who continue to experience enormous income and wealth disadvantage relative to whites.
Though he didn't say much about race himself; Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, took Black History Month as a chance to critique America as a nation of cowards on issues of race. It was a deft move of racial defiance by proxy. And when the NY Post implied Obama was a chimpanzee deserving of being shot for passage of the stimulus bill, President Obama brushed his shoulders off and kept it moving. African Americans respected the grace with which he handled these moments of national racial anxiety.
In 100 days Obama revived the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, a president whose legacy is built on black freedom. He effectively co-opted the Clintons, a task many thought was impossible. He shepherded through Congress the largest piece of legislation in American history. While he made some political mistakes and sometimes angered Progressives, he also managed to keep the banking industry from full collapse. In just over three months he restored the sciences, the arts, reproductive rights, environmental protections, and the rule of law. He began opening Cuba, dapped up Hugo Chavez, and held the first Passover in the White House. He hung out briefly in Canada, traveled to Europe, dropped by to see the troops in Iraq, and even swung south of the border for a summit. Even though he was changing the world he found time to play ball with his advisors, filled out an NCAA bracket, and had a beer at a Wizards game. This is what we call being on the grind but remembering to keep it real.
President Obama made a bit of a mess of the auto bailout and the torture memos. But just when Americans thought Obama might be weak he showed stunning strength,. First he fired the head of General Motors; something most people didn't even know an American president could do. Then he shot three pirates and rescued a sea captain, which established serious street cred for international conflict. Those are power moves and they showed his willingness to assert his authority when required.
So tight was Barack's game over the last three months that he has reduced the normally disciplined, spin masters of the GOP to a groping, unbalanced collection of naysayers. Desperate to counter Obama's racial cool factor, Republicans elected Michael Steele to guide the Party. Steele proposed a hip-hop agenda for attracting new voters, but with the rap strategy failing they turned to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. His idea was to rebut President Obama by reminding America of the GOP role in Hurricane Katrina. Not a good look. When none of this worked, the Republicans turned to FOX News manufactured rage, tea bagging, and secession. These actions made them look both vaguely pornographic and surprisingly desperate. At this point, Obama has so fully neutralized Republicans that even Arlen Specter is a Democrat. Watching the bi-partisan Obama handle his opponents so effectively is as surprising and enjoyable as watching Wayne Brady turn gangster on the Dave Chappelle Show.
It wasn't all policy and strength. To maintain and cultivate his Cliff Huxtable appeal, President Obama kept his campaign promise to his daughters and got the kids a dog.
Except for a few missteps including a terribly insensitive joke about the Special Olympics and a criminally stupid Air Force photo-op over lower Manhattan, it was a great 100 days. And did I mention, nobody shot at him? No wonder America feels like a more racially friendly place.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Can't wait to see the local wingnut responses. I imagine they will be something to the effect of "black people don't know what's good for them, I know better."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 01:59am
"But the best part of January 20th was that Barack and Michelle got out of the bulletproof, blac Cadillac and walked the streets...and no one shot at them."
There is a world of African-American experience in these words that many white Americans still fail to grasp, even with their moral imagination.
Barack Obama has joined the ultimate old white boys' club, and we can see clear signs that quite a few old white boys are very, very nervous about it. Fortunately, none of this nervousness has turned into violence against our president. Praise God or good fortune, President Obama has survived!
And Obama proves every day that he is qualified for his job. Although he is not perfect, he is as good as or better than any white president in recent memory. I haven't stopped feeling good about this. Every time the radio news mentions "the White House" and I momentarily cringe - an eight-year habit that I still have not unlearned - I am relieved to hear the calm, clear, full sentences that reassure me that Bush is still gone, and that we still have President Obama.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2009 @ 06:38am
he's doing a great job regardless of his ethnicity.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 07:18am
Yes he is, IBBLE, and Melissa's right: The fact that ethnic humor is starting to be taken in the spirit it was intended, the lack of assasination attempts (made public, anyway) and the withdrawal of the Sharpton/Bond/Jackson types into the woodwork is all part of this. I must say though, that I did respond to Eric Holder's Sharpton-like attack on Americans in general (the "coward" thing) by writing snail mail to him and telling him to go straight to Hell. That's been the only downside.
(BTW, you'll know what effect that letter had if my next email comes to you with the address CThornton@Leavenworth.com
Ha!
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 07:45am
Yes he is, IBBLE, and Melissa's right: The fact that ethnic humor is starting to be taken in the spirit it was intended, the lack of assasination attempts (made public, anyway) and the withdrawal of the Sharpton/Bond/Jackson types into the woodwork is all part of this. I must say though, that I did respond to Eric Holder's Sharpton-like attack on Americans in general (the "coward" thing) by writing snail mail to him and telling him to go straight to Hell. That's been the only downside.
(BTW, you'll know what effect that letter had if my next email comes to you with the address CThornton@Leavenworth.com
Ha!
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 07:45am
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 07:45am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah...dead on. i told holder in my heart to fuck himself, mind his own business, and do his effin job.
and he seems to be doing pretty good on my last suggestion.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 07:53am
Remember IB, if you feel yourself with an uncontrollable urge to go budebudeebdeebdee, that's all folks! Get to the Dr.right away! :)
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 08:42am
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 08:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
presterjohnOFasia?
didn't that end up being genghis khan?
lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 09:16am
Yeah, IB I'm writing Historical fiction on the Mongols, thats why I picked it.
Prester John was actually a guy named Tohgrul on Mongolia, and his grandson,King David of India, who everyone in the west thought was a great eastern king coming to crush the Muslims, turned out to be Chinggis Khan.
Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 04/29/2009 @ 09:48am
"It is not just the fact of a black president"
he's also a white president. he has family all over the world. he's lived in a few different countries.
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 09:54am
On the 7th Day He rested?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:28am
What Obama has really done is accelerate the downfall of the United States. He has already bankrupted the nation financially and is quickly bankrupting the US morally.
Either he is completely incompetent and unable to realize the damage he is doing, or it is a planned destruction.
Either way, the US is finished as the beacon of hope and light to the rest of the world unless both Obama and the nation repent and change direction.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:31am
President Obamanation that makes desolation and his Demoncrat minions deserve all the credit for the changes that they are making toward regressing the most productive, free, and greatest 20th century nation in the world to being JUST another failing, broken, destitute African nation!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/29/2009 @ 10:33am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:31am </i>
Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2009 @ 10:46am
Every time that we get a new president the ones on the losing side declare that America is finished and the world will now end,but one would think that they would figure out by now that we are still here and we survive the other sides presidents,but hope springs eternal.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 10:55am
Every time that we get a new president the ones on the losing side declare that America is finished and the world will now end,but one would think that they would figure out by now that we are still here and we survive the other sides presidents,but hope springs eternal.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 10:55am
I never said that about Clinton or Carter. Didn't like them, but I didn't believe they would destroy the country.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:59am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:31am </i>
Why?
Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2009 @ 10:46am
Economically, the nation will never be able to recover from the quadrupling of the national debt that he and the Democrats have already imposed.
Add in the plans for EFCA, annual minimum wage increases,Universal Health Care, and the Medicare/Medicaid Debt to name just a few, and the US will be bankrupt.
Here is Liberal economist Michael Hudson on Democracy Now
"So what you've done is given $12 trillion to the richest one percent--or ten percent of the population, and you've indebted the economy and the government to them for the next hundred years. You've created a new class of ruling families.
And Obama has--by doing this, he's broken with every president in history. Whenever the debts have exceeded the ability to pay, they've been written down to the ability to pay, either through bankruptcy or through conscious government write-down. But instead of writing down the debts, he says the creditors are not going to lose money, despite what Mr. Roubini said. They may have lost money, but they will be made whole by the government. And that's crazy. That's why every economic chart you see, there will be a gradual rise and then a sudden collapse. Everything is turned into a vertical fall. Prices, international shipping, employment, profits, they've all hit a wall. And there's no way that the economy can recover when people have to pay interest and amortization instead of buying goods and services, or companies will have to pay their junk bond holders instead of investing in new equipment."
http://tinyurl.com/d8xz23
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 11:07am
Thrawn,
As to the moral destruction, Obama represents no check or balance to the far left and it's determination to end all vestiges of morality in this country.
From homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle and the accompanying homosexual marriages, to abortion, to sexual rights for minors, and the new liberty that leftists feel to attack traditional faiths without restraint; all are leading to a rapid moral decay that will be soon morally bankrupt this nation.
In the past few years we are actually witnessing missionaries from Africa and other nations coming here because they now see the US becoming almost as morally bankrupt as Europe. Some have told me that hope and pray that the tide can be reversed unlike Europe that unfortunately is pretty much beyond hope.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 11:12am
antisocialist-Obama hasn't been around long enough for anyone to declare that America is finished and that is just the usual sour grapes that we get from so many on the losing side after every new POTUS election.The fact that you waited until now to join in with the other sore losers to declare the end is irrelevant.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:15am
thanks melissa, great post. for the record, i am happy with obama. i am still experiencing great relief and great joy that he is president.
Posted by loveloki at 04/29/2009 @ 11:21am
antisocialist-Obama hasn't been around long enough for anyone to declare that America is finished and that is just the usual sour grapes that we get from so many on the losing side after every new POTUS election.The fact that you waited until now to join in with the other sore losers to declare the end is irrelevant.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:15am
As usual, you have no substance to your rebuttal. I didn't just rely upon my personal view, I found that both liberal and conservative ecnomists are saying the same thing about what Obama has done to the US economically. Why don't you try and debunk what liberal economist Michael Hudson said?
Tell me why he's wrong when he says we cannot recover?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 11:27am
antisocialist-As always,you are pointing the immoral finger at the other side in order to ignore what your side of the fence does.When you gave your list of proof of immorality you only included those things that you think are leftist while ignoring the divorce/adultery issue as well as other issues that include your side of the fence..Jesus said that you cannot serve both God and money and it is a fact that the vast majority of people who call themselves conservative Christians know next to nothing about God,the Bible,or their religion,but they sure know a whole lot about making money as we can see even from these boards where only two show knowledge about their religion,but they come out of the woodwork to show knowledge when the subject is money.We even have preachers,like yourself,who promote the very economic system that leads these people astray and leads people to live for money, covet,exploit children,exploit adults,have wars for profit,etc...
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:31am
'He shepherded through Congress the largest piece of legislation in American history.' -- Melissa Harris-Lacewell
'Since last September Barack Obama has been trying to pull off the tricky shot of backing bailout schemes at taxpayers' expense for the Wall Street operators who have brought the economy to its knees, while simultaneously presenting himself as a populist crusader battling for economic justice and the regular folks on Main Street. Right now, for the first time since he was elected president, he's perilously close to plummeting from this high wire act and ending up publicly derided as Mr Facing-Both-Ways, a toxic label for a man whose moral keynote has always been that he'll play it straight with the American people.
...
As Obama's stimulus bill worked its way through the Congress, Oregon senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat, joined with Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine to attach an amendment to the bill capping executive bonuses for companies taking bailout money at $100,000. This provision sent off alarm bells across Wall Street and inside the Treasury Department and it was mysteriously killed in the conference committee in order to protect the AIG executives. Wyden jokes, "it didn't die by osmosis."' -- Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch.org -- 20-22 March, 2009
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/29/2009 @ 11:34am
antisocialist-As usual,you made a general put down like you did yesterday,but I'm still waiting for you to show where I was wrong in my statements rather than just making your usual general statement that I know nothing about these religions.I do not need to debunk what a handful of economist say because these people never agree with one another and you just, selectively,found those that agree with your view,but it is a fact that we survived the great depression and other such things making it a fact that we do not end because of a president.That is an historical fact.All you have provided are opinions that agree with your opinion.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:41am
Once again the left and "The Nation" has shown that it just can't get beyond the race issue. Everything must be viewed through the prism of race. The sooner you folks at "The Nation" and on the left can get beyond race, the sooner we can truely have a more perfect Union. Too bad it will never happen.
Posted by fram at 04/29/2009 @ 11:48am
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:31am
Let me count the ways;
If there is anything that I have emphasized during my years of blogging here, it is that few Americans are actually Christian. So your charge is hardly a rebuttal to me. I have preached on the fact that many corrupt people are in the ministry and have also stated that fact here. All of this is a product of liberalism.
And you further falsely charge that I
"We even have preachers,like yourself,who promote the very economic system that leads these people astray and leads people to live for money, covet,exploit children,exploit adults,have wars for profit,etc..."
which is demonstrably false as a conclusion. you charge that by promoting the American free enterprise system, I am leading people astray?
That system doesn't make people sin; their sin nature and a refusal to submit to G-d leads people to sin.
And comments like the "wars for profit" only further solidifies the lie that you are not a leftist.
I don't ignore divorce/adultery; I've pointed out that those acts and homosexuality are equally an abomination to G-d. They are in fact a product of what happens when a nation begins altering it's moral compass. When we took away the stigma of divorce and adultery, they become more widespread. The same with homosexuality.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 11:41am
I'll tell you what I'll do; I don't remember what thread it was on, so remind me and I will respond on this thread.
I have responded to you before on this topic. I have never seen you post any specific information that showed you had any knowledge of historic Christianity or Orthodox Judaism. I've seen you post generalities from more liberal teachings, but they are radically different than that of the early church or historic orthodox Judaism.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 12:04pm
"From homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle and the accompanying homosexual marriages, to abortion, to sexual rights for minors, and the new liberty that leftists feel to attack traditional faiths without restraint; all are leading to a rapid moral decay that will be soon morally bankrupt this nation"
i knew that antisocialist wouldn't have a response to thrawn's question of why obama is "destroying the country."
and i also knew that he wouldn't mention the asshole-in-chief bush who put obama into the unfortunate predicament of having to get the economy going via massive government spending (which bush and much of the GOP had also initiated).
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 12:05pm
antisocialist, if homosexuality isn't normal, then how do you explain its existence across a range of species, some of which we share 97% of our DNA with....?
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 12:07pm
antisocialist-The reason that you always make the general statement that I know nothing about the two religions,like you just did again, rather than making an attempt to back up that statement is because you can't back it up nor have you ever been able to show that I am repeating liberal teachings,but it is not surprising that you would try to label them as such.Unlike you,I spent three years studying Orthodox and ultra orthodox Judaism in order to convert to Judaism,but leave it to you to define those as liberal.It just upsets you that someone can study all of this and arrive at something different so you declare that person to be ignorant.Yesterdays discussion was on the Israel board.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 12:19pm
antisocialist-I just claimed that Jesus said that you cannot serve God and money.Please,show how that is wrong, since I know nothing.I say that Jesus never defined homosexuality as a sin,but you say that He did.Give us the quote.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 12:22pm
antisocialist-I believe that if you read your post about proof of immorality that you did not mention adultery,divorce,nor did you mention living for money and,as always,pointed the finger,again,at liberals.Stating that we humans,at times, fight wars for profit is proof that one is a leftist who has all left wing views?It's hysterical how you guys claim to love freedom and then tell people that you decide what their beliefs are.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 12:28pm
Honestliberal, why are you surprised that this President is a shill for the bankers? Remember all those signs at the Sean Bell protests? They said it didn't matter whqt race the cops were, because they all wore the same uniforms.
Posted by Mistral at 04/29/2009 @ 12:58pm
'For almost a generation, the Democrats in Congress have been able to pretend to be the party of ordinary working people, the party of progressives, and the inheritor of the mantle of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, all the while doing little of substance and catering primarily to the interests of Wall Street and the nation's corporate interests.' -- David Lindorff -- 29 April, 2009 -- http://ww w.counterpu nch.org/lindorff0429 2009.html
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/29/2009 @ 2:03pm
antisocialist, if homosexuality isn't normal, then how do you explain its existence across a range of species, some of which we share 97% of our DNA with....?
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 12:07pm
What some animals do physically has nothing to do with human homosexual behavior.
Perhaps you are suggesting that you are merely acting out uncontrollable animal behaviors? that humans have no act of will in their behaviors?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 2:44pm
'You know Darlene, some species eat their young!' -- Roseanne Connor [played by Roseanne Barr]
Posted by HonestLiberal at 04/29/2009 @ 2:49pm
antisocialist-I believe that if you read your post about proof of immorality that you did not mention adultery,divorce,nor did you mention living for money and,as always,pointed the finger,again,at liberals.Stating that we humans,at times, fight wars for profit is proof that one is a leftist who has all left wing views?It's hysterical how you guys claim to love freedom and then tell people that you decide what their beliefs are.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 12:28pm
What else do you need? I responded that those behaviors like adultery and divorce are equally wrong (as I have many times).
You can not cite a single quote ever from me that greed is good as I've always come out against it.
Nowhere did I say that only liberals engage in immoral behavior. I also cited that few Americans are actually Christian.
You merely keep regurgitating the same empty arguments, given that I don't make the statements you accuse me of.
As for wars of profit. While you might label the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American Wars as wars for profit, they can hardly be accurately labelled as primarily for those reasons. Other than those vague connections, we have never fought a war for profit in this country. Again, that merely reflects your liberal bias against that country, as only far left radicals ever make that statement.
Your last statement is so convoluted as to be laughable. Stating the obvious about someone's political and/or religious views cannot be logically construed as to somehow limit your liberty.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 2:50pm
antisocialist-I did not only mention America in terms of countries that fight wars for profit.We are not the only capitalist country that has ever existed.....I made no empty arguments.It is a fact that your post only contained those "sins" that you could lay on the left in order to make your argument that the left is bringing down our moral compass.You did not mention divorce,adultery,and greed because that blows your argument that it's the left bringing down America.You do not get to decide if another person is a Christian or not nor do you get to decide what my beliefs are..freedom means that others get to decide things for themselves.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 3:05pm
antisocialist-I just claimed that Jesus said that you cannot serve God and money.Please,show how that is wrong, since I know nothing.I say that Jesus never defined homosexuality as a sin,but you say that He did.Give us the quote.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 12:22pm
I've never disagreed with the statement that you cannot serve both G-d and money. The statement of course deals with the obvious that if the pursuit of money (as in the young rich man) is your obsession, you cannot and will not submit to the Lordship of G-d.
As to homosexuality, I've answered this to you and others many times. Of course Jesus proclaimed it a sin.
1. Jesus said that marriage was between a man and a woman (upholding the teaching of the Tanakh).
<The Rabbinical Council of America and The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America reaffirm the following foundational principles and beliefs in unambiguous and unmistakable terms:
Homosexual behavior is, and has always been, absolutely forbidden by Jewish law and tradition. Any attempt to characterize Jewish law and tradition to the contrary must be rejected.
The only legitimate form of sexual behavior is that which takes place between adult men and women, within the sacred institution of marriage, as traditionally defined and permitted.>
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100556
2. Furthermore, Jesus upheld the Law that sex outside of marriage is a sin (Matthew chptr's 5 and 19)
3. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said He came not to abolish the law, but to fullfill it and in Matt 7:21 says that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven.
So, Jesus upheld the plan of G-d given in Genesis.
Marriage between a man and woman. All sex outside of that is a sin.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 3:24pm
Personally, I can't take anyone seriously who calls our Commander-in-Chief "Brother President". Sorry. I can't give anyone respect who doesn't give themselves respect. Peace out.
Posted by ricky222 at 04/29/2009 @ 3:36pm
antisocialist-Your claim was that Jesus clearly defined homosexuality as a sin,but used a round about way to prove your claim which excludes the idea that something is clearly defined.Jesus did speak to that culture and time and used references that they would understand, like their law,but we do not know if Jewish law is what Jesus was referring to when He said he came to fulfill the law since He did not fulfill anything that relates to Jewish law..Taoism speaks about the laws of God,but they are not talking about the OT.I used to believe that being gay was a choice until I got to know some gay people and after learning that science is proving that there are differences in people who are different and now lean to the born that way side. Jesus would have known that it is natural for some to be born different,but would not have gotten into that with those people at that time nor could He go too far when it came to comments about Jewish law, back then.But what I do know is that if one takes all of the teachings Jesus gave on the subject of judging others then one can only conclude that it is best not to especially when it comes to subjects like consensual sex between adults.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 3:53pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 3:53pm
Your response is a great example of why I maintain that you know nothing about Christianity and Judaism
Jesus was openly acknowledged by the masses and the Jewish spiritual leaders as Rabbi, Master, or Teacher. All titles given to those who teach the Tanakh. That point is not disputable
To suggest that He might not have been referring to the Law of Moses is not supportable by any Theologians or scholars, even liberal ones. In fact it is easily debunked
Luke 16:16,17, Matt 12:5, Matt 22:34-40
As a Rabbi, Jesus would only be addressing the Law of Moses.
Now back to your other point; Despite your many attempts to find some angle that will make Jesus accept sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman, it just isn't there.
Besides the previous verses, Jesus added very specifically in Matthew 15:18-20
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
More on Jewish Law
Orthodox Judaism restricts sexual activity to a legally permissible marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. A man and women are even prohibited from being in a closed room alone together if they are not married, a law called yichud, nor are they allowed to have physical contact (a law referred to as negiah).
From every reading of Talmud, this was clearly the understanding at the time Jesus taught.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 4:32pm
antisocialist-There was nothing in my response that showed that I know nothing about what Jewish or Christian beliefs are.I'm quite aware of what both believe and have read the Mishna and large parts of the Talmud.I already know what views that Christians have on the subject of which law they believe that Jesus was talking about and know what Christian views are on most all subjects.Like I told you,I was a Christian who had such beliefs until I read and studied it for myself.I read the OT/Tanach over and over again and studied it and could not find Jesus there.He is not even related to David.I do know that Christians believe that He is related to David,but He,simply,is not.So please,do not tell me that I do not know about Christianity because I dispute the claim the Jesus is related to David.I know what the belief is,but dispute it.Since I could not find Jesus in Jewish law I looked elsewhere and do not care what most scholars say.Jesus said-The Way is narrow and few would find it" and you,once again,gave the the opinions of the overwhelming majority.I could not find Jesus in the OT,but found Jesus in Taoism,Buddhism and elsewhere so I go where I find Jesus and do not go where everyone else goes.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 4:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 3:24pm
So in actuality homosexuality isn't a sin, homosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin. So you can make out with a guy in public you just can't have sex and you will still go to heaven?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm
Can we all enjoy the irony? LVL is sitting here proclaiming doom and gloom, with a handful of opinions from people when not but 6 months ago he was complainin that liberals just hate George Bush for no reason. That their claims they would end the country were stupid and ignorant, blah blah blah. Now LVL sounds EXACTLY like them. Exactly like every liberal who said Bush would turn America into a fascist dictatorship.
Can we just appreciate that?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:06pm
So in actuality homosexuality isn't a sin, homosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin. So you can make out with a guy in public you just can't have sex and you will still go to heaven?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm
No because as you well know, Jesus said to even consider the action in your heart is to sin.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 5:20pm
LVL you quoted one economist. Again you think because he is liberal that is the end all be all and therefore no one who is also liberal can argue with you.
The majority of economists around the world are saying that what Obama is doing is what needs to be done AND he SHOULD take it even farther.Why? Because if he doesn't the US economy will stagnate like Japans did for who knows how long. Most economists, including the Economist newspaper, have said that what he is doing is not socialism, what he is doing is best for his countries survival just like every other country in the world right now is doing. So if you think this is going to sink us, then every other country in the world is going to sink too because they are all causing sky rocketing debt in their own countries to end this recession. So are you saying without fail every country in the world is about to be destroyed because they are all spending massive amounts of money to fix their economies? And they claim that anyone who denounces that effort as nothing but socialism is an ideological idiot(in more elegant words).
Just because SOME economists agree with your view doesn't mean ALL economists agree with your view and it doesn't mean your view is correct. Economists are educated guessers to a degree. They are like weathermen but with something even less predictable. So they always disagree and quoting one person who agrees with your point of view and holding that up as the end all be all is quite hilarious to those of us who are rational thinkers.
The doom and gloom folks have yet to be right about anyone, they aren't going to be right this time around.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:21pm
No because as you well know, Jesus said to even consider the action in your heart is to sin.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 5:20pm
But what if they don't want to have sex. They just want to love each other. If that's the case I guarantee you every single one of us sinned before marriage even if you waited because gay or straight you still had that action in your heart.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:24pm
No because as you well know, Jesus said to even consider the action in your heart is to sin.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 5:20pm
It seems like you want it to be a sin. And no matter how much I can frame it within your standards of non-sinful behavior you will still call it a sin. You just basically admitted that homosexuality(the love of someone of the same sex) is not an actual sin according to the Bible, sex outside of marriage is a sin. Now you are trying to backtrack and frame it so that the actual homosexuality is the sin not the sex.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:26pm
There are a lot of significant and satisfying feelings behind President Obama's election to office, many above have stated it well, so I will digress. It may seem petty, but the one thing out of all of this that made me think, "Ha! In your face! Finally, you cheap dumb asses." is the fact that I don't have to listen to bottom feeding comedians who have made a career out of race baited comedy. They are the lowest form of life in pop culture. It was never funny, it never helped anyone, including Obama, and at best harmed the emotional and intellectual development of untold scores of young people from all back rounds. Good riddance.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/29/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 4:59pm
You can't have it both ways. Earlier you claimed that it is not even sure that Jesus was talking about the law of Moses, now you say you weren't disputing that.
you dispute the record that Jesus is related to David but you are clearly wrong. there is no debate on the subject.
And as to the OT referring to Jesus, then you are calling Jesus a liar when he says of the Tanakh,
"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
John 5:39
Who was Isaiah referring to in Isaiah 9:6,7?
Would G-d lie when He says that He does not share His glory with another?
So you say you respect Jesus, yet you don't believe Him when He says the scriptures testify of Him and that He has shared the Glory of the Father from before the foundation of the world?
Why if you don't believe His claims would you bother with anything He says?
And before you counter with you don't believe He actually made them; you need some evidence to back your claim other than opinion.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 5:48pm
antisocialist-You did not debunk the claim that Jesus was not talking about Jewish law by your Bible quotes or by anything else..You assume that He is referring to Jewish law and read that into Bible quotes,but if you assume otherwise you get a different read.When I disputed what Christians believe you responded by stating that I did not know about Christianity,but I stated what the Christian belief is and you agree that that is the Christian belief so I must have known was it was.It is irrelevant what the masses called Jesus nor do we know what they meant by what they called Him way back then.That He would speak to that time and place and culture is not surprising,but when you tell people that they must be born again and seek the truth then you are telling them that truth does not exist in what they believe now and you make the accident of birth irrelevant..
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 5:49pm
antisocialist-When someone has a different view of God or Jesus than you have that does not mean that they have less love or respect for God and Jesus than you.Please,repent of your sin of arrogance and ego before you point the finger at gays.I'm not trying to have it both ways..I have only claimed that I do not believe that He was referring to Jewish law,but was referring to the laws of God as is seen in Taoism..Actually,there is no debate as to whether or not Jesus was related to David since He clearly was not unless you are saying that He was 100% human and Joseph was his dad.If you're going with the virgin birth then Jesus was not related to David.Jesus can be found,indirectly,in all scriptures that promote some His views so saying that He can be found in Jewish scriptures is not surprising,but I was not talking about indirectly,but what going by the Christian view of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.Cannot find that part of Him in the OT.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 6:05pm
antisocialist-You did not debunk the claim that Jesus was not talking about Jewish law by your Bible quotes or by anything else..You assume that He is referring to Jewish law and read that into Bible quotes,but if you assume otherwise you get a different read.When I disputed what Christians believe you responded by stating that I did not know about Christianity,but I stated what the Christian belief is and you agree that that is the Christian belief so I must have known was it was.It is irrelevant what the masses called Jesus nor do we know what they meant by what they called Him way back then.That He would speak to that time and place and culture is not surprising,but when you tell people that they must be born again and seek the truth then you are telling them that truth does not exist in what they believe now and you make the accident of birth irrelevant..
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 5:49pm
That is some of the most twisted logic I've ever seen.
So if 2 US Senators reference the constitution, we can't be certain they are mentioning the US constitution? Especially if they reference a specific passage?
that is just plan nuts-Sorry, but that's not even juvenile logic.
Sorry IM, but your rambling nonsense is just not worth arguing further.
Everything you have interjected as a supposed response is merely your conjecture. I am citing not only the vast majority of theologians throughout the history of the church, but the early church fathers of the first 2 centuries. I have where needed also inserted from Talmud and Mishnah.
You may have read a lot but unfortunately you absorbed nothing.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 6:26pm
antisocialist-I'm not surprised that you are trying to put me down in order to dismiss views that differ from yours since that is what you always do and, once again,you respond with views expressed by the vast majority while ignoring what Jesus said about the Way being narrow and how few would find it,but ignoring Jesus is what Christianity has been doing since day one.Jesus said that you will know them by their fruits and your fruit is rotten and filled with put downs,arrogance,war,judging,condemning,and ego.Jesus said to tear the tree out roots and all,but you guys did not do that when you found rotten fruit on the Catholic tree and just grafted on tons of new branches most of which are rotten and filled with coveting,a protestant work ethic that places emphasis on making a living and not on God,judging,condemning,greed,etc so I shall continue to obey Jesus and tear the Christian tree out roots and all and seek the truth.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 6:40pm
antisocialist-We know what two senators mean by the constitution because that is something that exists in modern times and we have the original copy and we have all of the teachings on that subject that exist in the original.With the teachings of Jesus we only have a small portion of the teachings and we only have copies of copies of copies,etc which humans have been very much involved in.Jesus spoke to a time and culture that we cannot relate to and know little about,but we can relate to the times that the constitution was written in and we know lots about that era..You cannot logically compare those two things.One happened in modern times and the other is ancient history.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/29/2009 @ 7:16pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 4:32pm </i>
This post actually undercuts your entire position because it provides a perfect reductio ad absurdum. If the same Tanakh you rely on also prohibited an unmarried man and woman from being in the same room together alone (as YOU YOURSELF state here), the logical extension of your argument must be that Jesus taught THAT as well, and that by virtue of him teaching it, we should continue to hold it as true and inspired. There is no way for you to avoid that impact because it follows from the precise form of argument you've used against homosexuality. The problem is, it doesn't work (and, by the way, would have made Jesus' allowing Mary Magdalene to touch him forbidden).
Second, it should be noted...the Tanakh is NOT the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch is. The Pentateuch never talks about homosexuality because at the time, they didn't even have any CONCEPT of what we would understand as homosexuality. If the concept X didn't even exist at a given time, it's difficult to argue that X was understood as immoral at the time. Homosexuality can't simply be understood as a set of acts, and you therefore can't rely on anything that just says "X and Y acts are wrong" to invalidate homosexuality.
Third, even if you buy that the Bible at least in some way talks about homosexuality: it NEVER ONCE talks about female sexuality, ONLY MALE. Your theory (marriage= between man and a woman) has no way to account for that distinction. Alternative theories (like, "man assuming the position of woman=understood as degradation of the man") explain that odd discontinuity significantly better.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2009 @ 10:47pm
Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2009 @ 10:47pm
I think most Christian logically know that homosexuality is not expressly forbidden in their religion, however because THEY find it off putting they try to find proof through their religion that it is morally wrong. No where does it say that it is morally wrong to love someone of the same sex. So it then follows as long as those two homosexuals are not having sex then they are not at fault of any sin. LVL says if it is in the heart then it is a sin, but I guarantee you every single human being on earth including LVL sins every day. You can't control where your mind goes.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 12:06am
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 12:06am</i>
That, ironically, is actually one of the few questions on which I completely agree with him. I don't think that sin consists purely of actions; I'd argue that it can include thought as well. Clearly a person isn't guilty of murder if they mentally plot someone's death all day with the full knowledge that they'll never carry it out, but does that mean they still haven't done anything wrong? It doesn't seem that way, and even though we're not always in full control of where the mind goes, we do have the capacity to shape it so as to avoid corruption. Granted, I don't think anyone will ever do so perfectly. Does that mean every single human being on Earth sins every day? Yup. Does that mean we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God"? Not even close.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2009 @ 08:51am
Race relations have definitely improved since Obama was elected. I know, because I've added three black women to my admittedly small circle of dating partners, while previously such a thing was almost unheard of (though it sure wasn't for lack of trying).
Obama becoming President changed the whole equation between black and white people in America. But we're only half way there. The next step is to start having kids together, like in Brazil. Once we all have children together, Americans will not only be free of racial hatred, but we'll be a whole lot more attractive too.
Posted by Dolmance at 04/30/2009 @ 12:34pm
Obama mania -- 100 days of failure
By his failure to speak out during the 23 days when Israel bombed Gaza, and by his failing to point out that by law the use of our F16 fighter jets and bombs is severely restricted to defense, the blood guilt for over 6,000 dead and injured civilians is on our heads.
By a failure to stop sending billions of dollars in war materials to Israel each year, all his words of wanting change are nothing more then pure hypocrisy.
If invading Iraq was a blind mistake, then surely his failure to bring our troops home is a clearly visible mistake, and the blood guilt for those killed in Iraq from now is on our heads.
As 911 was the result of vengeance for the harm we did in the Middle East, and as the number of civilians terrorists might kill attacking our homeland would never equal the number killed in our war on Afghanistan, his failure to stop this senseless war is a failure to stop our blood guilt.
By failing to prosecute those responsible for torture because of certain legal memos, this makes it impossible to stop further lawyers from creating new legal arguments that enable new kinds of torture. For only guilt will prevent torture, and no fear of punishment makes it impossible for a criminal to have guilt.
By his failure to start a criminal investigation of Wall Street and zombie banks, by instead giving a trillion dollar bailout to the criminals who destroyed our economy, he has created a dictatorship run by the rich, placed us trillions of dollars deeper in debt to the rich, and made the fall of Empire USA inevitable.
By failing to protect organized labor and our auto industry, by instead destroying hard fought union gains and driving GM and Chrysler toward the brink of bankruptcy, he has put us at the mercy of
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/30/2009 @ 2:36pm
Black people LOVED the first 100 days because a Black man is in office...period! This is the ONLY reason, and that is very, very sad! One day, out of the rubble and smoke of lies that the Dem's and the media have fed the black community, will rise the truth, and it will be then, and only then, that the black community will realize what a joke, a naive FLUFFER (Barack's new nickname ), and a straight up fool their chosen one turned out to be. This will happen, eventually, but we'll have to wait until the Black community is absolutely starving (it's comin' ), due to the FLUFFER'S destruction of our capitalist system, until they will finally wake up and shun the likes of Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Dem. party etc. It's comin', I promise!!!
Posted by barry25 at 04/30/2009 @ 5:57pm
That, ironically, is actually one of the few questions on which I completely agree with him. I don't think that sin consists purely of actions; I'd argue that it can include thought as well. Clearly a person isn't guilty of murder if they mentally plot someone's death all day with the full knowledge that they'll never carry it out, but does that mean they still haven't done anything wrong? It doesn't seem that way, and even though we're not always in full control of where the mind goes, we do have the capacity to shape it so as to avoid corruption. Granted, I don't think anyone will ever do so perfectly. Does that mean every single human being on Earth sins every day? Yup. Does that mean we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God"? Not even close.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/30/2009 @ 08:51am
You have expressed my views clearly as I was taught them when I was Christian.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:02pm
AlabamaJohn, I can only hope that you become one of the victims of the terrorts you defend once they attack us again. Those who enable evil, should be the first victims of it! Pathetic! Contrary to the revisionist history that looms in your empty dome, radical islam has been around long, long, long before the U.S. even existed. So keep on splitting hairs, while they wait and watch and plot......but I sincerely hope that WHEN we are attacked again, the victims be the enablers like yourself and all those other sick sheep on the left! Ca. sunshine feels good, I feel good, surf's up, I'm out sucka's! I did a straight--up drive-by on all ya'll....MSM style!
Posted by barry25 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:04pm
You might want to look a little closer at the bills listed in this article, like the "closing" of gitmo - it wasn't mentioned that those prisoners will just be sent off to other gitmo style prisons around the world. And the so-called "pay cap" on the TARP doesn't count for most of the people involved and not to mention that it is only for FUTURE bailouts, not the current ones.
As far as Abe Lincoln's legacy of freeing the slaves, that was by accident, look into your American history a little further and you will see Abe's goal was to keep the union together, even if that meant NOT freeing slaves.
and then go and check this website while you are at it; http://www.blackagendareport.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 04/30/2009 @ 6:26pm
Oh and one more thing I forgot to mention - how does the first African-American/Black president boycott a conference on Racism - in favor of Zionism/Israel/AIPAC?
This is a mind boggling thing to comprehend, wouldn't you agree?!
Posted by kristofeR! at 04/30/2009 @ 6:35pm
Shooting three people gives Obama "serious street cred"? If this is supposed to be a joke, it's a terrible one with racist overtones.
Posted by joemac at 04/30/2009 @ 7:45pm
As far as Abe Lincoln's legacy of freeing the slaves, that was by accident, look into your American history a little further and you will see Abe's goal was to keep the union together, even if that meant NOT freeing slaves.
Posted by kristofeR! at 04/30/2009 @ 6:26pm
Just to stand up a little bit for Abe Lincoln: Yes, his primary goal was to save the union, and he was a racist, but he also hated slavery, whoever was enslaved. Most importantly, he was able to adapt to the changes around him, including the actions that black people themselves were taking to secure their freedom. Thus followed the mobilization of 180,000 black soldiers, the Emancipation Proclamation and, ultimately, his support for voting rights for black veterans.
Was Abe Lincoln another John Brown or Wendell Phillips? No, but he wasn't Andy Johnson, either.
Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2009 @ 10:52pm
Melissa Harris-Lacewell writes:
"I believe African Americans are feeling racially optimistic because they respect how our first Brother President is handling his business. NOT ALL BLACK PEOPLE OF COURSE; THERE IS A GROUP CLAMORING FOR "ACCOUNTABILITY." But the polls are clear that most black people remain enthusiastic supporters of this president."
Does this salad mix represent confused thinking, bad writing, or both? The line in caps (here) serves as a kind of bridge to nowhere.
What's the reasoning to suggest that those people who favor 'accountability' don't respect Obama? And does this suggest other black Americans don't have other complaints? And if they do, so what? And why the split?
The writer's enthusiasm wears thin after awhile, and I wish there were less over-the-top idealizing and inflation - which does Obama no favors - and more considered critique.
Glancing through the comments, I noticed someone whose comments I usually associate with nonsense wrote 'and on the 7th day He rested?', and in this context, that gave me a chuckle to last all day.
Posted by nsaarinen at 05/01/2009 @ 5:15pm