I have to say, I think Pastor Manning has a point

Post Reply New Topic

He's the guy who criticized Obama in a firey, over-the-top sermon in which he used some unnecessarily offensive language. But, unlike Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright, Pastor James Manning accepted a request for a live interview on Hannity & Colmes:

ttp://www.foxnews.com/hannityandcolmes/index.html

(Click "Hate from the Pulpit?" to read the transcript, or Click "Watch Part 1" for the video.)

And he gave straight answers to all the questions he was asked, unlike endless interviewed guests we've seen on many other shows in the past. He didn't hide out like Rev Wright and Al Sharpton when asked for an interview -- nope, he showed right up, stood up and answered the charges against him.

But my main point here is that I think he's onto something when he asks why aren't black people choosing an actual black man when they say they are picking a black candidate? Why do they choose a man who's half white, and then act like he's been through all the black oppression in history? An Arab might as well vote for a Jew, and say, "Ah, HE knows what it's like for us!" It's non-sequitir. How would Obama, being half white, know what true black suffering really is like? And again, just because he "identifies as black" does not mean he's fully black. He's not. He's half-white and half-black. Therefore, he knows very much about what it's like to grow up as a half-white, half-black man. But he knows nothing of what it's like to grow up as a black person.

Again, don't misunderstand me: Black people, of course, can choose any candidate they want. That's not Manning's beef. His objection is that they are pretending Obama is a fully-black person. I, myself, am half-Jewish. As such, I don't pretend to know what being fully Jewish ethnically and culturally is like, nor do I pretend to have been treated like a fully-ethnic Jew my whole life.

I'm just saying, he's not the "black candidate". Put whatever spin on him you want; he's not. He's the half-black, half-white candidate. Pardon my facts!

Last edited by Ragtime on 28 Mar 2008, 2:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

To be honest, it doesn't matter what both Pastors think; we live in a country that should be working to keep the dividing line between church and state very clear and very solid.
Both are extreme in their views, both are heads of churches with solid followings, and both represent how politics has invaded our churches.
Both are wrong, and both are right. What you think about what they said is merely opinion, and will be argued over for eternity.
Obama's pastor should have absolutely no effect on which candidate you vote for; after all, the pastor isn't running for office, and Obama has/nor will he ever state that he is in lockstep with Wright's views.

Obama's faith should be under as much scrutiny as the toothpaste he uses to brush his teeth. Unless his personal faith intrudes on his public service, it should be of no concern to the American public. Neither should his race be under scrutiny - who cares if he's not all black or not all white? What difference does it make to you?

What should be examined is all the candidates' views on current policies and events - things that actually are important instead of personal and private info that's used as media fodder.

Also, Alan Keyes, who is fully black, is leaps and bounds more articulate and clearly communicative of his thinking than Obama is, and he's obviously quite brilliant as well. In contrast, Obama is sometimes called brilliant, but no evidence of this claim, past or present, ever turns up, whereas Keyes' brilliance is clear in every one of his speeches and articles. His qualifications go on and on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes. And there are many other black men like him who would be much, much better choices for president than Obama.

Alan Keyes has no idea why he's a republican, and he's not that brilliant. I've listened to him and Obama, and find him less inspiring and about as interesting as dishwater.

The only reason you brought Alan Keyes into this is because he's the only prominent black republican in the U.S.

And wikipedia is not a good source for info - it's not a credible source.

Here in the real world, everyone realizes that when chooses if his own free will to attend a certain church for twenty years, while giving large financial contributions to it, he's into what the church teaches. That point is crystal clear.



I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. A person's faith is the guiding light to his entire lifestyle.



His race is not under scrutiny, it's misidentified. (Nice try though.)



Yes, I agree whole-heartedly! When Obama finally talks about his views in terms more specific than "hope" and "unity", people will be able to know what on Earth his views are.

Nope. Nice try with the telepathy, but I brought him up because he was the first of the brilliant black speakers and thinkers that came to mind. I already gave Obama his due for being a good teleprompt reader-orator. But his talents pretty much end there, as far as the evidence is concerned.



It's right more often than wrong, and is commonly quoted on WP. It's a referrence to be judged by the reader, and by this time, everyone knows that. But we're not talking about Wikipedia, we're talking about Obama, who is a fabulously wealthy half-white who's running to be a black president. I just think, along with Rev Manning, the black people are being duped by Obama. He is not the genuine article. He joined a black church years ago to give himself black credibility to cite when he would eventually run for office. But otherwise, what does Obama know about being a black man?

EDIT:

Hillary is a woman. Hence, she is running as the woman candidate. So, that part of her compaign is at least true. She is not a trans-sexual who is running as a woman. But Barack Obama is a half-white who is running as a black man. In the game of identity politics, he hasn't even gotten to step one!

Last edited by Ragtime on 28 Mar 2008, 1:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Race is a slippery, artificial construct and I can't agree with much you said. Traditionally in America, any amount of African ancestry makes a person black; look up the one-drop rule, the 1/16th rule, the paper bag test, or other notions of race. They are strange, but not any stranger than your ideas. Do you think that If Obama (or anyone with a similar genetic make up) talks to 100 Americans, 98 to 100 will not classify him as black or African American? The African genes for skin pigment are dominant, and visually overshadow the contribution of his European ancestors. Obama may be 50% European, but he does not appear 50% European, but his experience as an American has been as one who is much closer to 100% black.

Alan Keye's is blacker? Maybe when it comes to skin. As far as culture goes, Keyes is speaking to white America, and has estranged himself from most of black culture. Why would black culture want a candidate who superficially looks more like them, but who had no cultural or political rapport? That's just crazy!

Really? Maybe I'm not white then. Maybe I'm Mexican, and my skin just doesn't know it. Seriously, do you think you can be whatever ethnicity you wish to be?



Talk about a "slippery, artificial construct"! Half is half, as far as I know. What math are you using?



My ideas so far in this thread are that I agree with a prominent black preacher who believes that Obama is not in any cultural or ethnic position to be a competent spokeman for blacks, and one who is personally familiar with what it is like to be born and raised as a black person in American society. I'm saying I think Manning has a point.
I'm saying half is half, and you're saying half is all.

At first, I dismissed Rev Manning, and thought very little of him, having heard some very crude comments he made in a recent sermon about Obama. But then, today, I saw his interview. He got my attention by 1) appearing on the show as invited, even though he knew he was invited only to be challenged (so, he has balls), and 2) he answered very hard questions directly, such as "You think all people are born bad?" He answered, "Absolutely I do," affirming a fundamental Biblical doctrine. Hannity, whom I usually like, was actually much less impressive than Manning in this interview -- for he contradicted himself bigtime, when he at first said "I think Obama is a good man", and then, when challenged on that (with another ballsy statement by Manning), Hannity then completely about-faced his doctrine, saying, "We're never going to have good people run for office". WTF?

If you read the interview at the link I gave, you'll see that Manning actually makes a lot of sense.

If you define race solely as biological, then Obama is 50-50. But race and ethnicity are not purely a biological concepts. They are for the most part social constructs. That is what you seem unable to recognize. Do you imagine that the way American society has dealt with race or ethnicity has anything to do with rational mathematics or a scientific understanding of genetics?

Yes, I do. You can't change your genetics, but you can change your ethnicity. Ethnicity is often related to race, but is not identical to it. A person can in fact be a member of two ethnic groups. The 'Hispanic' construct is the most obvious example - that ethnicity is non-racial. Hispanics from Brazil or the Dominican Republic may be Black or Mulatto; Hispanics from Mexico may be Caucasian or Mestizo or Sambo, etc. Hispanic ethnicity is not defined by race. African American ethnicity is not the same as genetics - a person who is half African can be entirely a member, as well as a member of another ethnic group.

Manning said that Obama is a "long legged freak", that he was "born trash" of a "father who went whoring after a white woman" and that "Obama pimps black women and white women" - he doesn't seem to have his head screwed on straight. His ideas on race don't seem that useful or accurate. Same with his theology. Yes, Manning talks about the idea of original sin, in the same sentence he calls Obama's mother a 'trashy woman' - this isn't a man who is advancing Biblical doctrine. He is using it to prop up his own hatred.

About race, you're injecting meanings all over the place.
About Manning, I think we're in perfect agreement that what you decided to quote was over-the-top for Manning to say, as I mentioned in my original post. The fact that he's wrong to have done or said some things doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, of course. The real crux of his message, though, is that if the black community wants a culturally black presidential candidate, Obama is totally not the right guy. He talks white, he acts white, and, although he's running as being Mr. Unity, he decides to not use the golden opportunity of utilizing his God-given position as both black man and white man. "Nope", he says, "I just wanna be black. Forget about my white half. Oh, and by the way, I want to reach out to you whites." (I'm paraphrasing, in case it's not obvious enough.)

Listen, Obama could win this whole presidential race hands down, if he would openly embrace both his whiteness and his blackness. Particularly as he's the "candidate of unity", what better way to show it than to make a speech saying:

"I hold high both my ethnicities! Both whites and blacks have many things to be proud of. And that is, and will continue to be, our common ground toward success! In America, our diversity is what makes, and has made, us great. Let us therefore join together on that front, to form a MORE United States of America!!" (insert unending applause)

But, sadly, no. He says, in effect, "I'm just black. And I'm fully partisan. I'm not anywhere near being willing to reach out to Republicans, and furthermore, what whiteness I am affiliated with I choose to minimize. I put my blackness above my whiteness, even though I'm running on a campaign of uniting those two groups, and am biologically 50/50." It's just an opportunity missed to not champion his status as both white and black instead of deciding to become only black. Do you know what that says? He's saying that races are so hopelessly divided in America, that even a half-black, half-white person must either be one or the other, not both. What hopelessness he brings in this! And yet, he says that he is going to be the one to unite everyone. Makes no sense, when he can't even unite his two halves. What will he say to half-white, half-black youths? "Choose your race now. You must choose one, or the other. You cannot be both."?

I think that your ideas of talking or acting 'white' are pretty superficial (and silly). The fact that Obama uses standard American English grammar doesn't affect his ethnicity. My father spoke his native language in the home and at his church, and English in school, work, and other places. People who meet him don't suspect that English is his second language. It's called adapting to the real world. People can call my pop and Obama sell-outs and ethnic traitors or Oreos. These are usually the people that don't succeed in life and need something to blame.

Not only are you obviously paraphrasing, you are putting your words in his mouth. And you are taking contradictory postions: on one hand, you stated that Obama self-identifies as black instead of identifying himself as both black and white. And yet you are criticizing him for speaking and acting 'white' and you agree with Manning that Obama isn't black enough.

If you really like the idea of unity, why are you so pre-occupied with classifying and pigeonholing people into ethnic categories, and deciding that people's ethnic identities aren't pure enough? People like Tiger Woods and Mariah Carey, Paula Abdul and Barak Obama are genetically multi-racial, and they develop an ethnic identity based on who raises them, where they live, and a number of other factors.

Alan Keyes holds crazy political views which is why no one ever takes him seriously. He's also ran against Obama in a direct race and lost by a very large margin.

You've never heard of the One Drop Rule?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

This should clear things up a bit:

He is clearly claiming to be the black candidate, yet his background (regardless of his race) is not at all like that of most African Americans. He spent time overseas, he went to Columbia, he became a lawyer. He simply does not share much of a common background with most African Americans, but he claims that he does. I think that is more what Ragtime and Pastor Manning objected to: he is presenting himself falsely, claiming to represent this demographic when he is in reality a far cry from it indeed.

Could someone tell me why this subject actually matters? You don't have to "be Black" to represent the interests of black people in Washington. You only need to represent their interests an lobby on their behalf. Besides, wasn't Clinton the "first Black President"?

Certainly. I will be glad to.

Barack Obama is currently campaigning for the office of President of the United States.