Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"an America-hating black separatist radical" - you know, we've all heard the "sermons" he sat under for twenty years. I call it black racism. Yeah, I know he quit the church, after heavy pressure, this year. I wouldn't sit in a church like that for one Sunday. So yes, I think he kind of hates white people. Why wouldn't I? Who listens to that garbage? Let alone supports it?
people don't sit under sermons. They sit through them.
I've heard about and seen some of these smear e-mails about Obama, but I've never heard of any about John McCain. It's not as if we couldn't come up with some questionable moments in St. John's background to expose and twist and lie about.
Gee, I think that says something about the right-wing nuttery in this country: they are scumbags.
Sounds fair enough.
The hardcore angry liberals (I don't know if that's you) are quite secure in their antisemitic ravings. If Muslims are the new Jews, Jews are the niggers. In fact unless Obama declares nuclear pogrom on Israel his first day in office, 3/4ths of Salon readership will flip out and scribble angrily that they won't vote for Obama for President for life.
With McCain, we wouldn't even have to "expose and twist and lie." Just telling the truth should be sufficient. But who wants to hear that?@?
"There are some fundamentalist Christians who have decided that Allah is actually a pagan moon god who was worshiped on the Arabian peninsula before the rise of Islam. But Muslims (and most scholars) believe Allah is the same God that Jews and Christians worship -- the word means "God" in Arabic."
This is because "Allah" is literally derived from the same Semitic root-word as the Hebrew name for God, "Elohim." The word "Yaweh" (a.k.a. "Jehovah") means "Lord." Prior to the codification of the Bible, the Israelite townsfolk worshiped "Yaweh", while the rural pastoralist Judeans worshipped "Elohim" (a.k.a "Eloh" or "Allah").
So when the Hebrew Bible says "The Lord and God are one", it is really saying "Yaweh and Elohim are one." In other words, by declaring the unitary identity of the two fromerly distinct tribal deities of two different Semitic groups (Judeans and Israelites), these ancient tribes were putting all their eggs (deity names) into one basket known as monotheism.
Islam strongly affirms this sentiment. While not denying the Christian view that "God is Love", the view that "God is One" is arguably the most fundamental principle within Islam.
So if the argument can be made that any earlier Semitic groups of the Near East worshipped celestial bodies and referred to them as "GOD" (e.g. "moon god"), then the same must be said of the polytheistic ancestors of those who wrote the Old Testament; they transformed their pagan deities into the unitary God of Western consciousness.
The notion that polytheism is a fragmentary and incomplete form of monotheism is also common to Islamic thought.
The same is true for the European groups who themselves later adopted this Semitic form of Near Eastern monotheism; in English, we have both the big "G" and small "g" god(s). The church Latin form "Deus", where we get "deity" is the same root as Greek "Zeus", king of the gods; the D-Z shift is linguistically common.
Following the logic in the e-mail, does this mean that the fundamentalist Christians who read the King James Bible (translated from Latin) are actually worshipping a philandering old dude who rules from Mount Olympus, throws lightning at people for fun, and likes bowling?
Kill Whitey! Allah Akbar! Workers of the World Unite!
I finished the first email, matching quotes to her thesis found on Politico, and I have to say, Mr. Madden, I'm very underwhelmed by your "debunking." I don't recall a single factually inaccurate statement in the entire email, aside from the mystery fellow black classmate. You merely argue that things are taken out of context, etc, when, frankly, they don't appear to be. In fact, you are engaging in some of the same techniques the chain emailer uses. For example, you put the following statement "Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, 'If those 'Whites at Princeton' really saw Michelle as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression'." all in quotes, and then only "debunk" half of it, giving the impression that the first quote was also not in the thesis, when it was, and it is particularly damaging to Mrs. Obama. Really, a piss-poor job at trying to explain away damaging Obama material. Another poster mentioned the anti-White sermons the Obama sat through in church for 20 years. This is just more evidence of that type of attitude. Where there's smoke, there's probably a fire. That being said, Obama is clearly the better choice, but Mr. Madden, you really look like a partisan hack when you write this kind of stuff.
The email states:
"Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder. Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world. Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning: 'There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.' What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America?"
This is one of the more damaging statements from the email. You "debunk" this with:
"This isn't particularly subtle, even by the standards of the e-mail. The message is almost as clear as in the rumors, which the campaign denied, that some tape exists of Michelle Obama ranting about "whitey" -- it's basically, "watch out, white people." (And cue up the image of Obama with an Afro and a machine gun, burning an American flag as she fist-bumps her husband in the Oval Office.)"
How is that "debunking" that passage of the email? What's wrong with that passage, other than it's incredibly damaging to the Obama camp?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
