Anti-semitism Barack Obama can fight!

posted at 8:40 am on April 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, Barack Obama made the laughable assertion that ” nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have.” He gave that as an answer to a Levittown audience when questioned about his church’s ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite honored by Trinity United Church and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. No one has produced any record of Obama criticism of that award before being challenged on it during his presidential run, making his claim of Fierce Denouncer somewhat suspect.

Fortunately, Barack Obama has another chance, and it comes from someone within his own circle. James Meeks, former state senator, pastor of another South Side church, and both a political ally and “spiritual adviser” of Obama, blamed “Hollywood Jews” for bringing the world Brokeback Mountain. And Meeks also has a lot of antipathy towards a key Democratic voting group — gays and lesbians:

A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement”. The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago’s ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… [who]… has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.’”

The SPLC newsletter also noted that, “Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that ‘fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.’”

On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed “Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain” and actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a “Halloween fright night” which “consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.”

That sounds pretty similar to Reverend Eric Lee, who blamed “Hollywood Jews” for negative stereotypes in popular culture at an event commemorating Martin Luther King earlier this month. Both Lee and Meeks believe in conspiracies of Jews to undermine culture. That, in turn, sounds similar to Jeremiah Wright’s conspiracy theories about government plots to commit genocide by creating the HIV virus. All of it suggests a lack of rational thought, creating a vacuum filled by paranoia.

The anti-Semitism in this case gets married to a strong hostility towards gays and lesbians. That’s a bit unusual in Democratic politics, but not unknown. While Obama reaches out to the GLBT community, he has already refused to support gay marriage, which is their main policy goal, because he doesn’t want to use his “political capital” on such a divisive issue. His association with Meeks might suggest that Obama has other reasons that for a national political campaign, he’d prefer to keep quiet.

The anti-gay actions of Meeks won’t make very good fodder for Republicans, who engage in that kind of nonsense far too often themselves. The Halloween Fright Night events are de rigeur among a subset of ultraconservative evangelical churches, scaring teens with images of gays, drug users, atheists, and others going to perdition’s flames. The GOP won’t have much credibility in criticizing Meeks for this, although the Hillary Clinton campaign might make more of this when it comes time to make their final push with superdelegates at the convention.

But on anti-Semitism, Obama himself left all of his opponents that opening. Of course, Obama could say that, as with Jeremiah Wright, he doesn’t agree with everything that his spiritual adviser believes. However, as the most fierce opponent of anti-Semitism, shouldn’t Obama publicly speak out against this claim of Jewish conspiracies to foist homosexual content onto moviegoers — especially when it comes from one of his own political allies and spiritual mentors? He certainly didn’t mind tying himself to Meeks when he needed votes in the South Side.

Addendum: A local television station showed footage of Meeks in action at the pulpit, calling Chicago politicians in Mayor Richard Daley’s administration “house n*****s”. Listen to Meeks’ ridiculous assertion, when challenged by the reporter, that the word isn’t an insult. Maybe Obama needs to explain this, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“Tough Language” ? So Limbaugh is “hate speech” but this guy is just delivering “tough talk” ?

D0WNT0WN on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM

I wonder how they explain why so many Black comedians can’t wait to dress up as women in their films and brain dead sitcoms. Eddie Murphy is possibly a Jooooo?

Are we allowed to question the bigotry of Black Americans? Have they not been given a pass to grow into the very closed mindset that they cry victim about? Hasn’t the Hip-Hop culture resulted in social trash and violence beyond any other minority musical offering and lifestyle? How does that even compare to one terrible film about two homosexual cow punchers?

Hening on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM

“The GOP won’t have much credibility in criticizing Meeks …”

I dunno, the GOP is full of RINOs these days, but your point is well taken.

Tony737 on April 13, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Tony737 on April 13, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Yeah they are the “true” conservatives.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:02 AM

they bleeped out the word nigger, they covered over the wor inthe movie die hard with a vengence,, goddam this jesus christ this or that a thousand times it seems the word has been elevatued to blasphamy,,it sure may be crue and crass , and things of this nature but it sure in hell aint BLASPHAMY

rico101 on April 13, 2008 at 9:02 AM

What is blasphamy?

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Meeks is a clown, no more so than if he were to go into the pulpit with a Bozo wig and size 37 shoes and a poofy orange collar. His point about “house niggers” and the acceptance of that word and that term in the African American community is almost certainly true, except when it’s not. And when it’s not, the very mention of the word is grounds for the immediate resignation of any person even remotely involved in public life. Unless they’re black.

His point about various unnamed officials in, or having business with, the Daley administration is a twist on the obvious truth that Daley and the Chicago Democrat party have engineered a racial spoils system in Cook County, where racial groups — or more specifically individuals claiming to speak for a group — are bought off with some piece of government or business, in exchange for their inclusion in and support of the Daley machine. Chicago has three important groups in this function: Hispanics, west side blacks, and south side blacks – the self-appointed leaders of which claim to speak for the race.

If this is what Meeks is referring to with his gutter language, so be it. It’s obviously true. I find the rest of his race-based schtick to be boring, ignorant, and of course, a self-serving vehicle to lots of money and influence. Same old, same old.

Jaibones on April 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM

“Tough Language” ? So Limbaugh is “hate speech” but this guy is just delivering “tough talk” ?

D0WNT0WN on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM

Bizarro world I tell you!

lsutiger on April 13, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Wright & Meeks are the kind of kooky pseudo-Christians Obama must have been referring to who “cling” to faith out of bitterness.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 9:09 AM

It’s the same article Hannity cited to try to connect him to Meeks last month. The only connections between Obama and Meeks are this article from 2004 (Which doesn’t even quote Obama calling Meeks a “Spiritual Adviser”), that he spoke at his church once during his senate run, and he was on a list of potential delegates. And yeah, new details can always come to light but this story is really old now. Even Hannity seems to be losing interest in this connection, moving back to the Ayers meeting lately.

Typhonsentra on April 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM

The more I see of sermons delivered by the likes of Wright and Meeks, the more I wonder whether these are churches or tax-exempt PACs.

flipflop on April 13, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Hening on April 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM

I get the point you’re making about dressing up in movies as women, but I have no problem with it overall, there’s a ccenturies old tradtion of men playing women’s roles, due of course to the fact that women couldn’t be actors back in the day. If any of the cretins like Meeks or Lee are informed enough to know of that fact, they’ll try to explain it away that way. My guess? They aren’t that informed…

bikermailman on April 13, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Typhonsentra

The article said Obama went to Meeks’ church for Bible study & prayer. Has Obama denied this? Why would the article make this up? I will believe Meeks is an Obama adviser until Obama denies it.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Meeks is a clown, no more so than if he were to go into the pulpit with a Bozo wig and size 37 shoes and a poofy orange collar.

Homey don’t play dat.

James on April 13, 2008 at 9:24 AM

flipflop, these people really do consider themselves to be a ‘real’ church. It’s the Black Liberation Theology garbage that James Cone created, and they buy completely into it.

bikermailman on April 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM

The anti-gay actions of Meeks won’t make very good fodder for Republicans, who engage in that kind of nonsense far too often themselves. The Halloween Fright Night events are de rigeur among a subset of ultraconservative evangelical churches, scaring teens with images of gays, drug users, atheists, and others going to perdition’s flames. The GOP won’t have much credibility in criticizing Meeks for this, although the Hillary Clinton campaign might make more of this when it comes time to make their final push with superdelegates at the convention.

Hey, when the gay activists stop targeting all of their propaganda towards children (and courts) instead of adults (and legislatures), stop hoaxing hate crimes against themselves, and stop using the death of people like Matthew Shepard (who was hit by a gambling operation because he wouldn’t pay up, not because he was gay) to falsely advance their gay agenda, maybe I’ll reconsider my view that homosexuals as a movement are the scummiest lowlives of all.

Please, if Meeks really hates gays and wants them all slaughtered that is a problem, but if he opposes their poisonous, wretched movement to indoctrinate children they themselves cannot create and destroy an institution they have have no actual respect for in their quest for absolute sexual license and complete, forced public acceptance , then he’s on perfectly solid ground to me.

That doesn’t even go into the fact that if the gay activists get their way, the government can’t deny marriage benefits to any two people who walk up to the Justice of the Peace. If it’s legal to marry men to men and women to women, essentially marriage is just a meaningless civil benefit that has no purpose but to give freebies. It isn’t as if you have to prove you love someone to get the JP to sign, nor will you, thanks to no-fault divorce (another regrettable reality), ever have to suffer any for your choice.

BKennedy on April 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Please, if Meeks really hates gays and wants them all slaughtered that is a problem, but if he opposes their poisonous, wretched movement to indoctrinate children they themselves cannot create and destroy an institution they have have no actual respect for in their quest for absolute sexual license and complete, forced public acceptance , then he’s on perfectly solid ground to me.

The “gay rights movement” and those kooks in SF and KW are a decided subset of the movement. Ive met enough normal level-headed gay folks to convince me of that. It would be like me buttonholing the entire Republican party by looking at most of Limbaughs callers.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:44 AM

If McCain goes after him about this, he will have to answer questions about the same rhetoric out of his pastor.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Squid Shark

“same rhetoric”? Name one example.
Of course you can’t.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Jeremiah Wright: “Obama is right when he says people “cling” to religion out of bitterness. Look at me!”

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 9:50 AM

Name McCain’s pastor. Hint: it’s not Hagee.

Ed Morrissey on April 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Uh oh. This stuff’s coming out now? In April?

Hey Obama! It’s a long time ’til November.

Go Hillery !

Go! Go! Go go! Go Hillery!

BowHuntingTexas on April 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM

I was referring to the gay stuff…sorry I should have made that clear.

I think his pastor is very nice and a good Southern Baptist. I even met him once and he engaged me in a fine conversation about Jewish and Christian theology. He didnt even give me the Southern Baptist hard sell.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Name McCain’s pastor. Hint: it’s not Hagee.

Ed Morrissey on April 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Ed, Dan Yeary of course :)

A nice version of your standard issue Southern Baptist Pastor.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 9:59 AM

It’s a term of endearment.

Woot, that’s rich. I wonder if they pass the offering plate at that church asking the poor and oppressed to give some of their meager “slave” wages.

Hog Wild on April 13, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Hog,
Your post are always a treat.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Yeary never says anything hateful against gays or anyone else.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Notwithstanding the recent tremendous advance in black opportunity, helped by affirmative action that has worked to the detriment of whites, especially in small towns in “Rust Belt” states such as Pennyslvania, many big city blacks feel frustrated that the gap in achievement between blacks and American in general has not been closed. In their bitterness, they fall prey to widespread Jew-hatred, hatred of whites in general, a paranoia that the national government is trying to destroy them, defense of dysfunctional families leading to widespread crime and social breakdown, a feeling of absolute entitlement, religious charletans preaching a violent end to the enemies of the American blacks, and a hatred of America and corresponding love for America’s enemies whatever their stripes.

I love you blacks who are so hopelessly deluded and I will never again express any of the thoughts exressed above, which will be twisted and misinterpreted by my enemies. Please vote for me for President!

P.S. I didn’t mean any of the above, but it is nonetheless the honest-to-God truth!

ptolemy on April 13, 2008 at 10:23 AM

ptolemy on April 13, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Hear hear.

JiangxiDad on April 13, 2008 at 10:27 AM

The anti-gay actions of Meeks won’t make very good fodder for Republicans, who engage in that kind of nonsense far too often themselves.

Exactly, since this dope is partnered with the noodniks in Focus on the Family etc.

Dash on April 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Obama is finding out the hard way that uniting with any political group in town for shared goals (Saul Alinksy) works well for organizing independent pressure groups but for electoral politics, it’s fatal error.

PattyJ on April 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible, to say the least. I’m not saying this guy isn’t an anti-Semite, or that he’s not shown “antipathy” towards homosexuals, but citing the SPLC to prove it is like citing a mid-80s issue of Pravda.

exlibris on April 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Meeks may be a clown but he is an elected representative to the state legislature.

davod on April 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Black liberation theology is prophetic, as Wright and Meeks say it is. It is a mindset that produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is setting race relations back by decades.

JustTruth101 on April 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM

What a mess. Seems while “America” is ready for a black President, “Black America” is not.

Frederick Douglas and MLK would be turning over in their graves. A little lost history about the term “Uncle Tom” for you.

Isn’t it interesting that the “Uncle Toms” are actually the ones who do the all name calling? Originally it was a term for black Republicans who voted Democrat after intimidation. Perhaps this history was discovered long ago and so the new “House Ni**er” was coined.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM

BKennedy on April 13, 2008 at 9:32 AM

I concur. It’s disappointing to here other conservatives adopt the talking points of the left and equate opposition to the gay political agenda with hatred of gays.

There would be plenty of room for everyone to coexist (as the bumper sticker says) if the Left was content to be left in peace (as I am) and not determined to force us buy their whole agenda heart and soul.

Nosferightu on April 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM

The dirty secret is many middle class & poor blacks have anitpahty towards homosexuality. This is why many resent gays being included in a movement called “civil rights”, as if a sexual practice is comparable to skin color. In fact, the greatest abomination to many is not interacial dating but homosexual relations between two black men.
O.K., this is not scientific….just an observation after many years of being the minority white in the workplace and working in the black community. Of course, we’re not supposed to discuss prejudiced black Dems when we know it only exists among white Christian males, right?

crashman on April 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM

According to James Cone, one of the founders of black liberation theology, the theology is defined as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology#cite_note-2

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

JustTruth101 on April 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM

This is setting race relations back by decades.

JustTruth101 on April 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Let’s hope so. The race pimps like Sharpton and Farakahn and Jackson and Wright have for too long been the public face of the black community. And the white liberal guilt towards AA’s made every encounter fake. It’s about time we started over. But we’re in the middle of a Pres. election, so we’ll have to confront this issue at some other time. In spite of what Obama is either purposely or inadvertently doing by injecting race into the election, it’s not what people are concerned with.

JiangxiDad on April 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM

This is setting race relations back by decades.

JustTruth101

Let it. I “hope” average people of all races focus past the MSM’s clouding of the issue at shed a harsh light on all of it. Out the chaos true black leaders could finally emerge.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Obama’s entire candidacy is becoming a huge distraction from the vital issues facing our country.

JiangxiDad on April 13, 2008 at 11:04 AM

This is setting race relations back by decades.
JustTruth101 on April 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Let’s hope so.
JiangxiDad

Meeting of the minds.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Obama is permanently OT.

JiangxiDad on April 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Yeary never says anything hateful against gays or anyone else.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Didnt say he did, but this will open up that can of worms about whether Christian teachings on gays amount to hate, a fight we dont really need right now.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Obama’s entire candidacy is becoming a huge distraction from the vital issues facing our country.

JiangxiDad

Not exactly. Obama’s candidacy or rather his character is THE ONLY ISSUE that matters. He represents everything that is wrong with the left. Why they are unfit to lead on any issues.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM

crashman on April 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Black gays treated worse in the over-macho inner-city culture than gays in backwoods communities are treated.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Black gays treated worse in the over-macho inner-city culture than gays in backwoods communities are treated.

Squid Shark

Treated? Worse? How?

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Well yeah, you’re right. But having to deal with his character issues for so long and take so much time/energy to expose him as a charlatan diverts attention from serious stuff like Iran, Iraq, the economy and those kinds of issue. The Dems keep forcing the country to focus on the personality of their candidates, and never the substance of the issues. I don’t think that’s intentional, because they’re all about the cult of personality, but it does actually help them, because their issue is socialism.

JiangxiDad on April 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Dash

You have a lot more in common with Meeks than anyone at Focus on the Family. You & Meeks are hateful, but Focus offers loving solutions to homosexuals who want to change.

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM

anti-gay nonsense

Objecting to an unhealthy, self-destructive lifestyle is nonsense? Promoting healthy lifestyles is nonsense?

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Black gays get their a** kicked more frequently in the ghetto culture than white gays get in the backwoods.

A little more clear?

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM

jgapinoy on April 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM

More more unhealthy than any other promiscuous activity.

To each his own.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible, to say the least. I’m not saying this guy isn’t an anti-Semite, or that he’s not shown “antipathy” towards homosexuals, but citing the SPLC to prove it is like citing a mid-80s issue of Pravda.

exlibris on April 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Good point, but I think we can trust the SPLC to be in the right ballpark when criticizing a member of that highest, most sacred type of human being–the black man.

thuja on April 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM

but Focus offers loving solutions to homosexuals who want to change.

I have found that “recovered” homosexuals are more effed up than praticing ones. Just an observation.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Black gays get their a** kicked more frequently in the ghetto culture than white gays get in the backwoods.

Squid Shark

That is not true. Perhaps in high schools. But in the “inner-city” some of the black gays are a product of the prison system. They are very dangerous.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Listen to Meeks’ ridiculous assertion, when challenged by the reporter, that the word isn’t an insult

Well it isn’t an insult if it is true. Which is what they are saying.

The modern day definition of black, black activist, black militant includes a belligerent hostile attitude especially towards whitey. If you don’t have that attitude you are not ‘black’ which is why when Obama’s campaign first began that piece appeared in the LA Times asking is Obama black enough ?

This is why white conservatives get so confused, we assume it is about skin color, when it is about attitude, and culture. Thus Bill Clinton as our first black president.

rockhauler on April 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Back to anti-semitism… That is a product of the “Nation of Islam” black muslim cult.

While Christians are turning toward Israel and the Jews, isolated so called “black churches” are basically making it us as they go along. It has very little to do with Christianity.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM

This is why white conservatives get so confused, we assume it is about skin color, when it is about attitude, and culture. Thus Bill Clinton as our first black president.

rockhauler

Seems you understand fairly well.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM

We will have to disagree on this since neither of us has anything but anecdotal evidence.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM

We will have to disagree on this since neither of us has anything but anecdotal evidence.

Squid Shark

My mistake. I did not explain. I was schooling you. I am black. I live in New York.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Much of the “frustration” and “hostility” comes from a sense of guilt, and helplessness. Some of the problems “part” of the black “community” faces are much much worse than considered.

On one hand prison sentences are unfortunate. Failures in parenting. However, prisons are HELL ON EARTH. The horror of prison magnifies the failure.

So we hear little about the horror, to lessen the failure. Instead we hear about unfair sentences, and corrupt cops, harsh judges.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Last time I checked the Beastie Boys and Vanilla Ice never used the “N” word.

Again little condemnation of the black “artists” performance. It is all about the “Joooos”!

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM

BHO is knee deep in racists and bigots. It’s up to the drive-by media to make it a non story, which they will.

Mojave Mark on April 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM

The modern day definition of black, black activist, black militant includes a belligerent hostile attitude especially towards whitey. If you don’t have that attitude you are not ‘black’ which is why when Obama’s campaign first began that piece appeared in the LA Times asking is Obama black enough ?

rockhauler on April 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Obama’s candidacy does bring this out into the open…but ONLY for those who are paying very close attention. The MSM is doing backbends and cartwheels trying to keep all this quiet. If Obama is elected Prez, he’ll sign the Fairness Doctrine if Congress gets a dem majority…scary, scary times…

JustTruth101 on April 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM


Agrippa2k

I have to ask for clarification, being an elderly white recluse living deep in the northern forests, and open to more ‘schoolin’.

Were you agreeing with my previous comment, or agreeing but sarcastically, or disagreeing with sarcasm?

What is your opinion towards the stereotypical hostile belligerent gangster black man?

Do you feel the need to push back against an oppressive white establishment?

I have a theory if you are interested.

rockhauler on April 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I have found that “recovered” homosexuals are more effed up than praticing ones. Just an observation.

Squid Shark

Oh yeah…….and angrier.And “gayer” once they’re honest about their desires. Just an observation on my part as well.
I think Dobson is sincere about this “deprogramming” but not really as accepting as he thinks he is.
Angry Christian white guy accepting gays here.

crashman on April 13, 2008 at 11:54 AM

If Obama is elected Prez… scary, scary times…

JustTruth101

Given the incompetence of Hillary’s campaign, and McCain’s weakness – I am very afraid.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I find the “Pastor” voice and delivery of these “holy” men ridiculous and repulsive (from both blacks and whites). Meeks went from honkey hatin blast preaching to a mild creature in the interview.

I hate religious showmanship, it cheapens religion and makes an exhibition of physical fervor a replacement for spirituality.

BL@KBIRD on April 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM

My mistake. I did not explain. I was schooling you. I am black. I live in New York.

Agrippa2k

I trust your experience as much as I trust my own. I’ve found NYC to be a very tolerant city, Sharpie’s agitations notwithstanding. Could this be the reason for your experience?
I know, all anecdotal in the end.

crashman on April 13, 2008 at 11:58 AM

What is your opinion towards the stereotypical hostile belligerent gangster black man?

rockhauler

Can a stereotype be true, or is it an assumption that rarely has a basis in broad based fact – over an entire group?

I think they can be true. The “hostile belligerent gangster black man” does exist. It would be a “negative” stereotype to claim that a black man IS A hostile belligerent gangster.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:01 PM

I’ve found NYC to be a very tolerant city…

crashman

NYC’s tolerance has nothing to do with the ghettos, which we were talking about. NYC is the greatest city in the world, for EVERYBODY. However in the subculture of particular ghettos, being gay does not put you at the kind of risk that a closeted gay person might feel when in public in the burbs.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM

The anti-gay actions of Meeks won’t make very good fodder for Republicans, who engage in that kind of nonsense far too often themselves.

I’m glad others on this thread have already called this statement out. I don’t appreciate disagreement with a lifestyle that has never in history been accepted and has (scientifically) significantly enhanced the AIDS problem in this country to be ‘nonsense’.

The gay community is more militant than any other community. They are NOT discriminated against insofar as people are saying they should be jailed or punished for being homosexual. But the gay agenda is pushed more than any other for no good reason. They want to confuse children under the cloak of ‘tolerance’ when they are in early gradeschool.

nonsense? Disagreeing with the gay agenda is ‘nonsense’?

I’m disappointed in this statement about the opposition to the ‘let gays play the victim’ community. The American Episcopal Church has been splintered because OTHER COUNTRIES don’t approve of the gay lifestyle that the American church approved of. It’s not the Church that is the problem, it is not American traditional values that are the problem. The problem is the gay community forcing their unnatural practices on the rest of society as mainstream. They will never be satisfied. . . but to disagree is ‘nonsense’? I think not.

ThackerAgency on April 13, 2008 at 12:07 PM

The gay community is more militant than any other community.

ThackerAgency

This is false. The gay community is “represented” by militants. This is the same problem the black community faces.

The leaders of the gay community are the ones that propagate the belief that gays are sex crazed, products of child abuse . Just as black leaders propagate the belief that black folks are {put your stereotype here}.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM

K, like I said, anecdotal evidence. I live in the south in the city with the largest black population in FL.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 12:11 PM

K, like I said, anecdotal evidence. I live in the south in the city with the largest black population in FL

Squid Shark

You didn’t say enough. I don’t get your meaning.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Maybe if you were living in a ghetto in the south, your opinion would be different.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I am saying, none of us have any kind of hard statisticsm just anecdotal experience.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Agrippa2k,

I agree completely. Defaming an entire group because of the actions of a few members of that group is the logical mistake that identifies the racist.

Beyond race you can see its effects in every social organization where we divide ourselves, or allow the group to be divided into factions.

rockhauler on April 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM

However in the subculture of particular ghettos, being gay does not put you at the kind of risk that a closeted gay person might feel when in public in the burbs.

Agrippa2k

I agree with you to some degree but I’m talking about a suburban and urban prejudice that doesn’t manifest itself in a violent way…just an intolerant and distainful way.
We are getting along here, aren’t we?…lol.
And yes, NYC is the greatest city in the world. Just ask my midwestern convert wifey.

crashman on April 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

ThackerAgency on April 13, 2008 at 12:07 PM

If aids had been introduced into the promiscuous hetero culture in NY or LA in the late 80′s instead of the gay bathouses of SF, we would be talking a whole new ballgame, so how about you lay off that AIDS is the gays fault crap.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Maybe if you were living in a ghetto in the south, your opinion would be different.

Squid Shark

Our opinions are the same. Your point is that in the burbs gay men feel less threatened. I agree, but they avoid certain circumstances/areas. At one end of the spectrum, safe – near the middle danger.

The “inner-city”/”ghetto” is like the burbs. Danger in the middle, among working poor, but at the other extreme, among hardened thugs, gays are more likely to be part of that element – safe.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM

so how about you lay off that AIDS is the gays fault crap.

Squid Shark

AIDS is another guilt issue. The problem in Africa is such an order of magnitude greater, it puts the problem here in perspective. Manageable. Beatable.

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Agrippa2k on April 13, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Yep, after doing comrel in Mauritania, It is in stark contrast.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM

And yeah, new details can always come to light but this story is really old now…

Typhonsentra on April 13, 2008 at 9:18 AM

Does age make something go away, or good?

I wonder if you lefties apply the same criterion to the candidates from the right.

Entelechy on April 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM

As a gay conservative, I’m delighted to see so much anti-gay rhetoric coming from the Obama camp (and democrats in general)! I really chuckle when I hear The Left complaining about us over here on the right being so hateful.

SouthernGent on April 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

This is Barack WhosInsane Obama’s Angry Gun Toting Religious people.

Kini on April 13, 2008 at 1:22 PM

SouthernGent on April 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Amen, we have our share of idiots, but they are managable.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM

If aids had been introduced into the promiscuous hetero culture in NY or LA in the late 80’s instead of the gay bathouses of SF, we would be talking a whole new ballgame, so how about you lay off that AIDS is the gays fault crap.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM

I’m gay, so perhaps I can make this point without being homophobic. Ten to fifteen percent population of gay men engage in frequent anonymous sex. This is a great way to evolve a new disease. The promiscuous population needs to be condemned and legally harassed for all our sakes–especially the sexually restrained gay men who are their most likely sexual partners. While, admittedly, disgusting sexual lifestyles among gays is no more going to go away than is hetero prostitution, how do we minimize its effect? Legal recognition of gay marriage would encourage better sexual behavior among some gay men, and help provide positive role models to teenage gay boys.

thuja on April 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Good Lord you’re one annoying, self-righteous ****. Congrats, you’ve made this thread unreadable.

exlibris on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM

I have found that “recovered” homosexuals are more effed up than praticing ones. Just an observation.

Squid Shark

Perhaps, but logic says they already had some serious conflicts otherwise they would not have opted for some kind of program to turn them heterosexual, so you can’t necessarily blame the “recovery” programs.

rokemronnie on April 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM

bikermailman on April 13, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Totally agree. The Brits used to lead the pack with this, but it just seems like in the last ten years Black comedians have discovered dress up and can’t get enough of it. I guess the Jooos are at it again.

Hening on April 13, 2008 at 1:46 PM

thuja on April 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM

I agree with you.

My point was that tons of hetero americans were engaging in frequent and anonymous sex at the time as well, especially in large population centers.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:51 PM

exlibris on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Hows that?

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:53 PM

exlibris on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Are you denying that there is a contingent of prejudiced disgusting pricks in the Republican party?

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM

is not not is, sorry

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Legal recognition of gay marriage would encourage better sexual behavior among some gay men, and help provide positive role models to teenage gay boys.

No it wouldn’t. You already mentioned that a fairly high percentage of gay men get off on promiscuous and mostly anonymous sex. Surveys of gay men in long term relationships show the same pattern. Many gay activists openly say that gay marriage will not necessarily mean the same thing as heterosexual marriage. The simple fact is that men are more promiscuous than women and in the gay male community that promiscuity is doubled or maybe even exponentially squared because, well, they’re all men.

Also, are you sure you want to bring up the subject of being role models to gay teens, in light of how many adult gays get off on twinks and the numerous personal ads on for “bear/cub” and “father/son” relationships?

If aids had been introduced into the promiscuous hetero culture in NY or LA in the late 80’s instead of the gay bathouses of SF, we would be talking a whole new ballgame, so how about you lay off that AIDS is the gays fault crap.

You should read The Myth of Heterosexual Aids by Michael Fumento. By claiming that “everyone” was risking infection, activists did a disservice because resources were devoted to population groups that weren’t really at great risk. Because of IV drug abuse rate in the black and Hispanic communities, and also because of the phenomenon of bisexual black men “on the downlow”, those communities were particularly at risk. There are cultural factors the influence the spread of disease.

You don’t think there were infection vectors from the gay bathhouses in NYC and SF into the general heterosexual community in the 80s? With all that supposed hetero promiscuity going on there certainly must have been a few bisexual men involved. However, the simple epidemiological fact is that an American heterosexual in the 1980s would have to have had more than 100 sexual partners before facing a significant risk for HIV infection.

There are reasons why HIV/AIDS first started being noticed in gay men, just as there are reasons why it has spread widely among heterosexuals in Africa and parts of Asia.

Sorry if it’s not PC to say so.

rokemronnie on April 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Are you denying that there is a contingent of prejudiced disgusting pricks in the Republican party?

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 1:56 PM

is not not is, sorry

Squid Shark

You had it correctly the first time. Your edit would make it a double negative.

Well, you had the grammar correct. There are just as many “prejudiced, disgusting pricks” in the Democratic party as among the Republicans. Ironic how you engage in stereotypes here. I’m old enough to remember Democrats in congress filibustering the Civil Rights Act. KKK member Robert Byrd is a respected Democrat. If you go over to the Huffington Post you’ll see plenty of Obama supporters calling Clitonistas “racists” (not that the abomination, er… Obama Nation is correct – lefties just love tossing around epithets like “racist”, “fascist” and “prejudiced”).

rokemronnie on April 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Remember when being gay was being happy.

Kini on April 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Also, are you sure you want to bring up the subject of being role models to gay teens, in light of how many adult gays get off on twinks and the numerous personal ads on for “bear/cub” and “father/son” relationships?

Those would be pedophiles, not gays.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM

rokemronnie on April 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Did I ever say that the Dems are angels? Nope.

We need to clean up our own house though.

Squid Shark on April 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2