Too many stones in Glass Houses….

Posted: December 6, 2011 in Disgusted in AZ, Personal, Pres. Barack Obama, Racism, Religion
Tags: , , , ,

Please note this is a complete redraft of a post that I actually wrote yesterday. See my note at the bottom as to why.

I have been seeing a lot of what I think are questionable criticism’s of President Obama in the MSM that is related in particular to his religion and his faith, or lack thereof. I have also been seeing a lot of comments on social websites and via email sent from well meaning family members about these same things. Most of the time I ignore it but it gets frustrating after a while and I get really tired of people maligning him unfairly. By all means question his policies, there are some things he has done or failed to do that irritates the crap out of me. But the religious stuff, I prefer that people leave that alone.

Let me explain what I am hearing and why I think it is unfair and wrong to say such things about President Obama.

Accusation: He doesn’t act like a Christian

Response: Here’s some fun facts. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson routinely attended church but neither believed the story of Jesus (his miraculous conception, his resurrection, none of it). We know this from their personal writings and the writing from people close to them. Washington in particular was obsessed with his “legacy” and being well thought of. Going to church was part of his attempt to be well thought of. Jefferson wrote his own Bible, the height of heresy from the perspective of most modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Okay back to the current day.

I know many Christians that don’t act like Christians and don’t ever remotely come close to being Christ-like. So what does make a good Christian? Well according to the Bible and what I was taught in the Southern Baptist Church as a child one must accept Christ as their savior. Since no one can look into the President’s heart and mind, no one can know whether this is true or not. He, like almost every President before him, has declared that he does believe.

Many will say that “good works” are the way in which you tell a good Christian. What are good works? Charitable giving and work for others is one interpretation. Now some would say that proselytizing is included in good works but I am seeing some who say that it could be considered an evidence of faith but other good works qualify too. The assertion that the Pres. has not done good works has no factual basis. In fact, he’s done quite a lot. Here’s one website that talks about what he has done recently, both as President and as a private citizen. Many of these things I, a supporter, have never even heard about. Many conservatives will say that he’s only give less than 2% of his income, blah, blah, blah. I don’t trust them to report the truth about that kind of thing and I would want to see the IRS statements myself, thank you very much. Also, who the hell said that giving money is the only way to give charity?! I never have enough money to donate to charities but I give tons of clothes, canned food, furniture, etc away every year. Some of it I claim on my taxes but most of it I don’t. And then there is time donated… I really think this entire idea that the President does not do good works is BS.

In regards to tithing, I know a lot of people who claim to tithe but, again, very few people who do. Alot of people do give at church, however but not the full 10%. I’ve seen some stats that claim only 6% of evangelical Christians in the U.S. do tithe. So yet again some people want to hold the president to a standard that very few people meet. Here’s something else to think about….Both Pres. Obama and his wife paid for their college educations with scholarships and student loans. They weren’t able to pay off their student loans until around 2007 or 2008. And the only way he was able to do that was using the profits he made from his first two books. Are you really going to tell me that you’d ask him to tithe and give money to charity when his family were struggling to pay off student loans? Really? If he had tithed and not paid off his student loans, what would these people be saying….hmmmm, I wonder. I know Christians who don’t tithe AND didn’t pay off their student loans, does that make them not a Christian? No, of course not.

And finally, no man or woman can judge the true faith of another. Only God can look into the heart and mind of a person and see whether their faith is true. That’s what Christians believe Judgement Day is for. And since Judgement Day is not yet here and the critics are not God, they should keep their judgement about someone else’s faith to themselves. Better yet, all that energy spent hating on Pres. Obama and trying to prove he’s at best a lousy Christian and at worst the Antichrist, needs to be redirected within in preparation of their own soul for Judgment Day and for acting in as Christ-like fashion on a day-to-day basis.

Accusation: He doesn’t take his kids to church weekly.

Response: Routinely going to church doesn’t mean you’re a good Christian. Plenty of evil people are Sunday regulars–child molesters, rapists, etc. Why has the President’s attendance been spotty, at least to the nosy public? The President has privately expressed frustration that what should be a semi-private act of worshipping within a congregation can never be that way while he is President. The few times he has gone to a church, the entire thing turned into a circus that devalued the service for his family and was a great burden to the churches. Back in 2008, Time Magazine actually had an article about what church Pres. Obama would pick after taking office. I think that is just the perfect illustration of intrusiveness and silliness that the MSM and the American public engage in. I know for myself worship is a very holy thing and the idea of people following me around with cameras, noticing if I am singing enthusiastically enough, counting what change I put in the collection plate, etc, etc would totally piss me off. And don’t tell me that because he’s President he should just grin and bear it. He has done that but the difficulty and circus nature of the whole thing would affect anyone but the most die hard worshipers. He’s a human, not a robot.

In addition, people seem to think that because they don’t see him in public worshipping that he doesn’t do it all. That’s simply not true. President Obama has been using the chapel at Camp David as one of his private locations to worship as did George W. Bush. Beyond that he has visited churches in DC and sometimes in other cities while he is traveling (i.e., the visit to the Church in Hawaii this past week). For comparison, look at how often George W. Bush worshipped, a man who claims that being saved not only redeemed his soul but also helped him stop drinking. The fact is that Pres. Bush infrequently attended worship services and never joined a congregation. Did the people that are questioning Pres. Obama’s attendance also question Pres. Bush’s? Hmmmmm, that’s interesting…how people get all up in the religious business of the black president but not the white presidents….hmmmmmmm

Accusation: The Pres. attended a church, Trinity Church, that preached Black Liberation Theology for many years.

Response: This one amuses me to no end. When the story came out about Rev. Wright and that tape with him foaming at the mouth behind the pulpit, I was shocked not by what the Reverend had to say but why the media was acting like it was something they’d never heard before and so far out of the mainstream that it bordered on treason. I wasn’t shocked because I knew about Black Liberation Theology from my own forays into studying theology. I also know that it has been VERY common in African American (AA for short) churches since the 1960’s (yes its roots are from earlier but the roots of Christianity started before Christ but we still say it started with his birth, right? Well the birth of black liberation theology is said to be around 1966). I would venture to guess that Pres. Obama would have been hard pressed to find a predominantly AA church that didn’t have some of this liberation theology as part of it’s beliefs.

What is Black Liberation theology? It essentially is a view that AA’s must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — political, social, economic, and religious. It advocates achieving economic parity.   The Civil Rights movement was very influential because  AA’s were literally being liberated from the laws that bound them to less than full citizenship and their rightful place in society during that time period. Since that time the bondage they seek to escape isn’t as easy to solve, being more subtle and more systemic. There is no law to fight against now, but behavior patterns, misunderstanding, ignorance, etc. Those are much harder to fight and take longer to solve.

AA’s are still more likely than any other group to suffer from poverty, be victims of violence, have poorer health care, live shorter life spans, etc….they have a lot that they need to be liberated from. If their interpretation is that Christ wants that for them and offers a path out of those bonds (and indeed all human beings)…what is so awful about that? They don’t blame “whitey” for all their problems either, BTW. They are the first to admit that they do contribute to some of their own problems. For example they know AA men need to step up to the plate and be better fathers, husbands, mentors, etc. Their overall point was that even if AA’s did everything right, they would still be at a disadvantage in the larger society. IMHO, they are right.

So what was it about the President’s attending this church that really bothers his critics. Well, first of all they don’t like all the talk about “economic parity” because it is rooted (they say) in Marxism. What is equal parity? In the sense that black liberation theology uses it, it means having AAs treated as being equally valuable as white citizens and therefore compensated equally. Does that sound like Marxism/communism to you? I don’t think it does and let me tell you why by way of another example. In the U.S. women have traditionally made less than a man when doing the same job with the same qualifications. In fact, the last stat I read was that they made 70 cents to every dollar a man would make. That 30 cents over all the generations since women have been demanding economic parity to the present can really add up (I’ve written about this before). Pres. Obama recently signed into legislation the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which is attempting to correct this injustice going forward. Does that sound like Marxism/communism to you? A lot of patriotic women in the U.S would be offended if you thought so. If it does, take a look at the definition of Marxism/communism again1

The other aspect of Black Liberation Theology that worries many is that its critics feel that it calls for rebellion and revolution as a means to achieving their ends. I believe the truth of it is that they feel that would only be the final recourse and that the day to day means to affect change is through the system, legally, as voters, politicians, citizen volunteers and active members of their congregation. Now if the idea that “revolution and rebellion” are an option in their theology upsets you, I want you to do a thought experiment.

Let’s say you are a white person attending a prayer meeting being held by a major politician. While there you hear various preachers, reverends, laymen and politicians speak. Some of them are pretty enthusiastic as only an evangelical preacher can be when the Spirit moves them. What if some of those discuss the possibility of having to rise up against the government, against non-believers, or even secession from the federal government. You may not share their view but you were there. In fact, you may have heard these beliefs in your church back home both from the pulpit and during gatherings. Does that mean you are plotting rebellion and revolution?  No. Is it possible that other Americans who heard such comments might be upset? Yes.  Is it fair to paint you with the brush of not being a good Christian for just having listened to these preachers, politicians, etc? No.

Now to the other thing that bothers many critics about this church (and Rev. Wright). It was the statement that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”, referring to 9/11, and “…not God Bless America. God damn America.” That was a ugly bit of footage wasn’t it? Yes it was. So it was the statement about 9/11 and the damning of America that really sealed the deal with so many critics. Except, there’s some hypocrisy going on here. Many of those same critics while they don’t believe that the U.S. deserved 9/11, will say that the Federal government actually perpetrated it. To someone who loves their country, to posit that the federal government, our elected officials, would have allowed or even planned this event to occur is just as offensive as saying what Rev. Wright did. Furthermore, the bad2 behavior that the U.S. has engaged in and for which the Rev. says we deserve punishment did happen and that is also denied by these same critics of the President. Too many conservatives think that America is perfect. It isn’t and it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to think that. What’s that old saying, “pride goeth before the fall”….Indeed. I’m not saying Rev. Wright is correct that we deserve it but not acknowledging that the U.S. has done some things that have pissed people off (at home and abroad) and not to expect repercussions is silly. It’s like an ostrich that takes its hard beak and raps a bunch of hyenas on the head and then sticks its head in the sand to hide. There’s as pretty good chance the hyenas are going to get mad and attack the ostrich ripping it to bloody shreds. Right before the ostrich dies he thinks, “why did the hyenas come after me?” The ostrich at worst deserved to get the same treatment in return, a rap on the head. Instead he gets ripped to shreds. But his problem is he provoked the hyenas and then attempted to ignore what he’d done and THEN had the nerve to play ignorant about why the hyenas chose him to be the victim.  America has done some shitty things and then we act surprised when the victims are pissed off at us or even plot and act on that anger.  Yes, we played a part in it.  That’s the reality, like it or not.

In regards to the comments about “God damn America”, Black Liberation theory says that the current white version of Christianity has perverted what it was originally and is a lie, created by white people to support and maintain their dominance in American society. This belief in the illegitimacy of white Christianity explains why he says “God damn America” because he means God does damn white America for subverting Christianity. They believe that Jesus would never have countenanced the treatment that AA’s have received in the U.S. and that he would have denounced white Christians for their failure to do their part in making things better AND the way in which they had incorporated discrimination into the very fabric of society with the explicit help of white Christian leaders. IMHO, I think they are right on this issue. Not that white America should be damned, but that White Christians have used their religion to oppress minorities and women and they continue to try to intermingle religion with the state and the state with their religion, in an attempt to force their culture down everyone else’s throat, i.e., dominating society. Too much of Christianity in America today is about political power and too little about Christ’s teachings.

If Reverend Wright had said what I just did in the same measured, dry academic terms that I just used here there would have been much less controversy. If he had been a white preacher someone with an actual audience (which I don’t really have LOL), would anyone have cared? Even if he was in full-on preacher mode? If a white preacher said that God was punishing the U.S. for wrongdoing, would anyone have cared?   That actually happens all the time. I can’t tell you how many times I heard preachers say that we as a people will suffer not only here on earth but also eternal damnation if we didn’t repent our sins…that God would in essence damn us as a people for not being more Christ-like. Is that different than a black man saying God has and will continue the punish us because we have failed to repent and correct our sins against the minorities in our society? Is it really that different? Why is a white man allowed to say that but a black man cannot. When a Black man that says it he is considered a threat and the black man that listens to it supposedly unfit to be President of the U.S. A white man that says something equivalent is considered a good Christian and the white man that listens to it by dutifully going to church every Sunday is a good Christian and patriot.

Funny that double standard isn’t it. It’s the same double standard when it comes to conservatives acknowledging the extremism on their end of the political spectrum. In 2009 the Department of Homeland Security released a report on home-grown threats and included data about right-wing groups that pose a potential danger to the country, including not just racist or hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority and/or advocate radical and violent behavior over particular issues like abortion and immigration. Organizations that fit this definition would include Christian militias (there’s tons of these in AZ alone), Vigil for Life (they physically accost and publically harass women seeking a legal abortion), The Westboro Baptist Church (advocate the destruction of America because of our acceptance of homosexuality), etc, etc. Conservatives went berserk…evidently they thought we should only worry about really scary black people groups like the Black Panthers (who have actually disbanded, BTW, there is a New Black Panthers and they are considered a hate group as to how much threat they pose, I’m not sure). So it was okay to list black leftist groups or white groups that have been traditionally known as “hate” groups like the KKK. But the U.S. wasn’t allowed to even consider actual groups, perptrating violence, violating the law and/or advocating breaking away from or rebelling in the U.S. because they were on the conservative and WHITE end of the political spectrum.

Want to know why I think that is offensive and crazy? The worst terrorist attack on US soil, prior to 9/11, was perpetrated by a white Christian militia member in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It only took the Government to acknowledge white terrorist groups about 14 years and then put on paper that they thought these groups were a threat. And conservative Christians had the nerve to protest.  14 years after McVeigh, really?  I can hear it now….he was crazy?   No, no he was not insane or he would still be alive locked away in a prison for the mentally insane.  He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it to protest against the Federal Government for his conservative ideals.   The refusal by Christian conservatives to even acknowledge that people like Timothy McVeigh are a threat to this country, once again proves my point regarding the hypocrisy of this particular accusation.

Accusation: The President, along with all the members of Trinity Church, swore allegiance to Africa.

Response: There is the continent of Africa but no state or government of Africa. It’s hard to swear allegiance to a landmass. When we pledge our allegiance to the US is it the land mass to which we refer? No it’s the government and the people. It’s the principles and laws. There is no political entity in Africa that represents all the peoples in all the nations, nor one that administers law to them all. Again, there is nothing to swear to there.

Here’s the other thing…..that’s not what the Church said. White people scared by Rev. Wright flocked to the church’s website and saw the words that Trinity Church expects a “commitment to Africa”. These same people then spread out over the Internet (kind of like a plague) and sowed more fear by telling people that the church and Rev. White makes their members swear allegiance to Africa. Note the difference…commitment v. allegiance. The Church was asking for a commitment to help Africa to relieve Africans suffering and improve their way of life. Let me give you an example of how white people have done the same thing and no one has gotten too worried about it. Irish-Americans, many generations removed from Ireland and many of whom have never set foot in Ireland, still direct their charity and assistance to Ireland when people there suffer and in support of various political causes. That’s a commitment to another country, isn’t it? Is it wrong? Do we consider them “traitors”? No, of course not. Do we call that swearing allegiance to Ireland. No. When you claim that an American citizen has sworn allegiance to another government you are saying they’ve abandoned their country and betrayed it…that they’re a traitor. If we don’t call other groups of people traitors for being committed to helping people in other specific countries or locations, why is it okay to say that about Pres. Obama or any member of Trinity Church. In my view, calling someone a traitor is one of the worst insults there is, as it should be to any patriotic American. It’s too bad that some people are so quick to throw such an insult at a lot of patriotic black citizens for engaging in Christian charity. It’s ignorant and its offensive.

Accusation: Rev. Wright was preaching hate and Pres. Obama should have disassociated himself from it sooner.

Response: Again I can point to thousands of white churches across America that routinely denounce their fellow citizens in terms both angry and violent, that speak in public forums who predict violent reactions by Christians against non-believers and tell their congregations to prepare for the violence that will lead up to Judgment Day, and that endorse politicians who advocate secession (an act of treason by the way)3. Using the same logic that is used in the accusation, thousands, nay millions of white Christians should have stood up and walked out of their churches or prayer meetings or charity events, etc, etc, publically disassociating themselves and denouncing the beliefs of their churches and/or preachers. Have they done so? No. Will they do so? No. Do they see that what they are doing is equivalent? No. And that’s the problem.

The critics live in glass houses and they’re far too ready to throw stones. And to put a cherry on top of this logic sundae, let me also say that proving one’s religious sentiments is NOT a litmus test for the Presidency nor should it ever be. If some Christians have their way it would be a qualification for running for office. I guess they’ll have to turn into God then because they’ll have to start judging the faith of all presidential contenders. Perhaps it’s a good thing they’re getting so much practice for this future by judging President Obama today4.


Why the redraft?   I have never re-written a post before and I won’t be making a habit of it. I will, however, be taking more time before I post to think through what I am saying and if I might offend someone unnecessarily.   I wrote the redraft to address offense taken by a reader, in particular one of the individuals (but not the only one, to be sure) that started my thinking along these lines.  In essence I was accused of “intellectual rape” for having taken comments from a social media website and wrote about them here (even though I knew he would see the blog post over there too and it wouldn’t be a secret).  Also, I am speculating here since I’ve never heard even heard of the term “intellectual rape” before, because he felt offended that I had decontextualized his comments and accused him of racism unfairly.   It is true that I did not quote him literally, although I don’t think it would have made a difference as to my interpretation of what he had said.  I would be happy to quote him literally now to prove this point but I’ve already deleted the posts from the other website in deference to him.   I think the tone of my post is definitely improved and certainly the attitudes being discussed are used in pretty generic terms so as not to single out an individual.  If this still offends the reader, then I am going to have to say that I can’t and won’t do anything further to lessen  your being offended because it would be “intellectual dishonesty” and unethical on my part.  I try very hard to avoid that at all costs.  I have to look myself in the mirror every day and if I don’t stand up to injustice and intolerance then I am just a guilty as any perpetrator.  This is my blog and I get to write whatever tripe I want.  I welcome and even encourage any readers who disagree with me to comment and I will post all comments UNLESS they are so ugly that computer screens will melt or if a comment is completely unrelated spam (i.e., I pretty much allow all comments, good and bad).  Furthermore, I strongly encourage any reader who disagrees with me to create their own blog.  It’s easy, fun, free and generally good for the country. To my mind, the more discussion we have about sensitive issues like Religion, Race and Economic Parity the better, hurt feelings notwithstanding.  One final point, the use of the term rape when talking to a woman, even in a metaphorical sense as it was used here, is offensive. What I mean about that is since women are more often the victims of rape (9 out of 10 victims are women), using it in discussion with a woman or in reference to a woman is dicey at best.  You have no idea if that woman has actually been raped (1 out of 6 women in the U.S. have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape).  Furthermore, it’s a very serious crime with horrible emotional and sometimes physical repercussions that affect a woman (or man) for the rest of their lives.  The use of it to describe what someone rightly or wrongly deems to be an unfair debate tactic is to minimize and trivialize the real act of rape.  I would advise people to avoid using this term and use something that is less hyperbolic and potentially less offensive to victims. Of course, it’s a free country and you can say what you want.  Just don’t be surprised if you get called out on it. I’m sure my reader will say that I called him a “racist” and that is just as offensive.  At a bare minimum (in the sense that I meant to use it to describe someone’s comments) means that someone has said something negative about a minority (group or individual) without any real basis in fact or a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of facts (either purposeful or unintentional).   A person can say something racist out of ignorance or naivete.  I never said the reader was a racist.  I said what he was saying was racist and originates from racists who have an interest in perpetrating these lies in order to make white America more fearful and therefore more biddable.  Evidently I did a piss poor job of explaining this.  However, even if I had (and I suspect that if the reader actually reads this little note) he would still be offended.   I acknowledge that he is offended and why he is offended, but I will not change my draft any further in order to un-ruffle his feathers because that violates my ethics as a person.  Will he acknowledge that he  has offended me and why?  Time will tell.

  1. “a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents” via Wikipedia and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is how Marx described the economic system also from Wikipedia. There’s nothing in Black Liberation Theology so far as I can find that says anything about getting rid of classes or the state or common ownership or being compensated according to need. Instead they want to be treated like human beings, on par with white human beings. I know, that so darn revolutionary isn’t it. Eeeek!!!!
  2. If you even have to ask about some of the awful things this country has done overseas and here at home I couldn’t possibly list them all: Slavery, pre and some post Civil Rights behavior, the internment of the Japanese, the Tuskegee experiment, failure to acknowledge the sacrifice and bravery of African-American, Japanese-American, and Native American soldiers in our wars, and that’s just the beginnings of a domestic list. The foreign stuff: bombing innocent men, women and children in every foreign war we’ve ever been in (accident or not, we have done it), propping up dictators like Pinochet, Noriega, Hussein, the Shah, the Saudi Royal Family, etc and then in some cases helping to bring them down or punish them (nothing like playing both sides and pissing off all parties involved, right?), etc, etc, etc. And no this doesn’t mean I don’t love my country. It means I understand history and I don’t think we’re perfect. We can be better and we should be better than we have been in the past.
  3. evangelical and other conservative nut jobs that have said despicable things like Gov. Rick Perry, Tennessee Congressman Zach Wamp, members of the Alaskan Independence Party (Todd Palin), Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Montana politicians (they were preparing for secession by radically changing gun laws when Pres. O was elected), Larry Kilgore, Ron Paul, NY State Sen. Serphin Maltese, Nebraska State Senators Tony Fulton and Mark Christensen, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, Rev. Donald Wildmon and his son Tim, Alan Sears, James Dobson, Richard Lamb, Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, D. James Kennedy, Ralph Reed, David Barton, Tim LaHaye, and the list goes on and on and on.  I bet many of these people are not recognizable or even known to the majority of Americans.  That doesn’t change the fact that they run organizations that promote hate and bigotry by donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative causes and preach/speak to millions of  their American members  advocating disobeying the law, secession, violent imagery and in some cases violent action, and denying basic rights to sub-groups within the U.S.
  4. Sarcasm, of course
  1. Rick says:

    Well, as the person you’re referring to I can honestly say my words and thoughts have never been so misrepresented in all my life.

    You should check yourself next time you “go ballistic” and decide to write. The ideas you’ve summarized here are so ridiculously out of context I don’t know where to begin.

    This is truly sad.

    • drangedinaz says:

      I was literally quoting what you said in Facebook. Would you prefer I put the literal exchange here, I would be happy to do it. It doesn’t change anything about what you said and certainly won’t change my opinion of what you said.

      • Rick says:

        I can go paragraph by paragraph listing things out of context and misrepresented, right from the intro. Just doing this in itself from a conversation in another forum was low enough, but to throw my thoughts out there in public where I might not have seen them to defend where you control the content is so low. I don’t have time to chase our conversation around the internet. I thought we had a mutual respectful conversation going, but obviously you have changed from the person I once knew and had a crush on.

        If even one if these “slams” you would have talked to me about before misrepresenting on here you would have seen how far off base you are in the kind of minster you’ve tried to make me out to be.

        Calling me a racist! Wow. If you only knew.

      • Rick says:


  2. drangedinaz says:

    I knew you would see the post on my blog because it automatically posts to Facebook. I used my blog because this is precisely the kind of issue I write about on a daily basis and because such a lengthy conversation isn’t suited to Facebook. I used what you said because it is so typical of criticism that I hear constantly about Pres. Obama and in every case it is based either on made up facts, statement taken out of context, a misunderstanding of the larger context, etc, etc, etc. And my beliefs have been the same since I was 16 when I had a crush on you, so, no I haven’t changed. BTW, if you read carefully I am not calling you a racist. I honestly don’t think you are a racist. I think you have been fed a line of bull by other Christians and conservatives that are and you’re repeating it on public forums without understanding its origins and how damaging it is.

  3. drangedinaz says:

    I was wondering what a minster is..thanks for clarifying. I am not a monster and neither are you. We just have very strong opinions. I believe that a lot of the criticism, the same criticism that you have voiced, does have racist origins. You disagree. Let’s leave it at that.

    • Rick says:

      Ok I’m not a racist but you don’t think I’m smart enough to think for myself. Got it.

      Racial intolerance!? Wow.

      I don’t mean to say you changed tour beliefs. The humble care for others (which was prevelant even in your eyes) is what changed. Speaking of, If you had a crush on me you wouldn’t have asked to date the other guy – maybe that’s our problem – we don’t see eye to eye on what Jesus meant by love.

  4. drangedinaz says:

    I didn’t say you weren’t smart enough. I was trying to tell you that you’re being naive. If my calling you naive, offfends you then I’m sorry. But that is what I honestly feel. And in response you will probably say that I am at best being cynical and at worst a monster. About being cynical, yes I am. That wouldn’t offend me. A monster I am not. And that doesn’t really offend me because I know I am not and that you are misunderstanding me. I think you are incredibly smart and very well informed. I would encourage you to have your own blog–you can get one free on WordPress. I would read it actually. I am not a big fan of political and religious discussions on Facebook because it encourages brevity and its too hard to gauge what someone really means. But you and everyone else can use it as you see fit (obviously). I read comments on it all the time that I don’t agree with and 99% of the time I ignore them. However there are some that truly are unfair and I felt I had to respond. And the more you posted, you kept saying more offensive things (IMHO). As to whether you intended them to offend, I sincerely doubt it. You’re not a mean person. I never said you were. But taken literally…quoted literally, many Americans would be offended by what you said (yes, quotes from the Bible frequently offend people as it is a religious text of very strong opinion and often misused to my mind, but that’s another discussion).

    My care for others has not changed. My ability to speak out in support of my beliefs has increased. I am not the same shy, terrified girl who was constantly offended by the ignorance and racism all around me (and this is not referring to you whatsoever). I was to shy to ever said anything. My tolerance for people who knowingly and unknowingly perpetrate false information in an attempt to discredit a good person on the basis of religion has simply diminished. Of course, you and I are assessing the President based on some of the same facts (we both think the other is misinformed or uninformed to a certain degree and where we agree on a fact we frequently interpret completely differently–then we have to agree to disagree). I think he’s a good man. From the majority of your comments I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, you believe he isn’t a good man. Where I have evidence or logic that contradicts yours, particularly on the issue of the President, who I believe (again you probably disagree) has received more hate and more threats than any other President, I feel compelled to speak. I think that this country is getting dangerously divided and maligning the President is part and parcel of that. I think it more than coincidence that it is because he is AA. If he was a white man, many of the accusations made against him would not even have been noticed much less dwelled upon to the degree that it has been.

    You will find that many, many Americans agree that some of the criticisms leveled at President Obama are racially tinged if not outright based on racist thoughts. Many of the things you refer to have been used by racists in their arguments. But enough about that….I want to let it go. If you still think me a monster so be it. There’s nothing I can do about that.

    In regards to us when we were teenagers. I don’t even remember this other guy you’re talking about. But I do remember you very well. I also remember being over at your house or near your house and you talking about a very pretty girl called Honey (it was ridiculous name whatever it was), a neighbor and classmate of yours. It was obvious that you really, really liked her (and she was gorgeous I remember what she looked like). You kept going on and on about her and I thought well why don’t you ask her out! I couldn’t fathom why you were telling me about your crush on her. I remember that it hurt my feelings pretty badly. Maybe it was to get back at me for my comments about the other guy (who again I don’t remember or have a clue about nor did I ever date him). Or maybe I made up the story about the other guy to make you jealous because you made me jealous with Honey. On that point I honestly don’t know who said what first. Does any of that ring a bell? You know you were the only guy that asked me out in High School? The only one in all four years. I dated a guy (we went out twice) once to the Prom and I had to ask him. The guy I went to the prom with was in my grade and it was after you’d already graduated…and he definitely wasn’t the one you are referring to. So I don’t know if that sheds any light on that situation.

    In regards to connecting our short relationship with our not seeing eye to eye on what Jesus meant by love….good shot, that one hurt. Do you feel better for it?

  5. drangedinaz says:

    OMG, She was tall, thin and chesty, with a light brown hair actually the color of honey and she had a weird name like that too, like some kind of flower or actually Honey. She was in your graduating class and went to CV. She lived either on your block or the block beside you. I will make it my mission to find her picture and I bet you will remember her. I can see her face in mind right now! LOL Funny you don’t remember her and I don’t remember him. Ironic eh?

    • Rick says:

      the only girl I had a crush on w that description was Amy and she didn’t live anywhere near me – message me if you think of another one

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s