The conservative Weekly Standard provides some dandy analysis of the Obama-McClurkin episode. Surprising to me is the writer Dean Barnett’s reference to McClurkin as “semi-gay.” Now we have yet another term to add to the collection, albeit not one that is likely catch on. Guess you can color him skeptical.
19 thoughts on “Post-mortem on the Obama-McClurkin dust up”
I do have contempt for those who have spit on me, threatened me, pushed me etc… I did not view christians as hateful until that time. Has nothing to do with liberalism, God, or faith – but pure human hate.
BTW, those experiences kept me well away from accepting Jesus as my savior. It was only many years later that I finally came to Christ and I still oppose the actions, thoughts, heart of those “christians”.
“it refers to the reality that contempt for Christianity and Christians is woven into the warp and woof of contemporary (post-60s) liberalism, which constructs Christianity as a form of “hate” or “fascism””
When factions of Christianity supported slavery, they were racist…when factions did not support the right of women to vote, they were sexist. Now, the factions that do not support equal rights for the GLBT population are seen as?
I’m not sure that liberalism is doing the constructing of christianity…it seems that Christianity has done a sad job in constructing itself.
Warp and Woof? I think you may be reading too much into contemporary liberalism. I agree that there is some disdain for conservative Christianity in liberalism, just as there is disdain for liberal Christianity among conservative people. Here, again, though we run into a problem with definitions. I have yet to find someone who can adequately define a liberal – it seems to have a different definition depending to whom you are speaking.
I think the “contempt” that you feel exists among SOME liberals for SOME Christians, has more to do with religious extremism – when some Christians try and legislate their particular beliefs onto society and onto those who disagree with them. I think we see the harm that religious fanaticism can do when we look at places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
I believe that it is possible in this melting-pot of a country for us all to learn to get along and to love our neighbor – what strikes me as interesting is that the same religion that taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves, can, at times, make it difficult for people to do just that. We need to learn to respect everyone, and to treat everyone equally – that includes people of all faiths, liberal and conservative Christians, as well as gay people – many of whom are Christian as well. Each one of us deserves to have our voice heard (within the bounds of reason), and to have the same rights and privileges as the other.
No, it refers to the reality that contempt for Christianity and Christians is woven into the warp and woof of contemporary (post-60s) liberalism, which constructs Christianity as a form of “hate” or “fascism” (among other things like “mental illness” or “racesexclass-ism”).
I’m still confused? Is that term meant to suggest that all liberals hate Christ?
“Christofascist hater” is Liberal for “Christian.”
What in the world is a christofascist-hater? Is it a fascist Christian who hates those who disagree with him, is it a Christian who feels they must force all others to align with their beliefs through legislation, or is it someone who hates Christ?????? I’m just really confused.
Assuming Obama wins the nomination, the McClurkin thing (which I wrote about at my site) will be forgotten by November, when the choice is Obama or some christofascist-hater, etc., etc.
BTW … this story was pushed into the MainStream Media by the Hillary Clinton team.
Actually, the most pro-gay candidate by far is John Edwards. His wife openly supports same-sex marriage, and he has stated on numerous occasions that although his personal spiritual beliefs do not support same-sex marriage, he does not feel that this is the appropriate barometer for others. In my opinion, as someone who works extensively for change in this arena, is that Edwards would grant same-sex marriage in a heartbeat. He is by far the most socially progressive, and unapologetic about it…which, actually kind of wins me over, he seems (gulp) sort of genuine about the whole thing.
Saying that, I’m not sure he’s electable, or is in any way capable of the large-scale foreign policy issues ahead. But, if I were a single-issues voter on only gay rights, that’s where my vote would go.
Unfortunately for his vote, I consider many things.
I dunno – he was taped on The Ellen Show.
Obama is obviously pursuing an incremental strategy and will come back for the gays later.
I have lost some respect for Barak Obama but would definitely vote for him ANY day over Hillary Clinton 🙂
If I had a dime for every time a politician gave a less-than-substantive answer to a question I’d be a rich man 🙂
The evidence that Obama is pro-gay is pretty strong. His record in the Senate in Springfield, IL was strongly pro-gay. His failed campaign for the House of Representatives was pro-gay (a largely poor, african american district). He is a member of Trinity UCC here in Chicago. I prefer Obama to Ms. “DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” anyday. Sure, reasonable people will disagree.
Yes, I believe you are right in some cases – my personal experience with the candidates is they say one thing in front of their supporters and then behind closed doors they say something very different. I believe Melissa Etheridge addressed it with Hillary Clinton at the forum without much of a substantive answer. I was not surprised. It actually made and still makes my stomach turn every time I see or hear it.
Semi-gay?? Huh?? How about those in transition – transistional gay? -Do we ask – are you coming or going?? Why can we not just be people who are constantly defining and refining our definitions of ourselves. We are all doing it – becoming a parent, becoming a wife, now a wife or husband, becoming an in law, becoming a teacher, a seasoned teacher etc. etc..
People say and do what they need to in order to get elected.
You are right to some extent – the social conservatives rail against gay people to win over other social conservatives and social liberals support gay people to win over those that support equal rights for gay people. I don’t, however, think that this always means these people don’t believe or support the issues though. I’m sure at times it does and at times it doesn’t!
They may say they are pro-gay but I can assure you with certain candidates they do not stay consistant in this stance behind closed doors. Yes, it is true. People say and do what they need to in order to get elected.
This is so overblown. No candidate can be responsible for everything that their supporters believe. The bottom line is that Obama is as pro-gay as the other democratic candidates (except for that elf one).
Comments are closed.