Normally, when I this guy on TV - he makes me want to puke

[scooperhsd]

To say I don't normally care for the way he usually goes is more than a bit of an understatement. 

However - this article ought to be read and thought about, especially by Trump supporters.

For your reading....

https://thinkprogress.org/rev-barber-moral-change-1ad2776df7c#.tgn6sgj0n


If he was as reasonable on TV as this article was written..

[hubcapsc]

I've never heard of the guy before.

As much of the article as I read was rubbish.

-Mike "ymmv"

[Willow]

Well that was not worth reading.  It amazes me how someone so stupid and misinformative can get such an audience.

from the article:

It is impossible to react to the election of Donald Trump with anything less than moral outrage.

I'm here to tell you I have achieved what this man finds impossible.  Having said that I'm absolutely certain that my moral standards are higher than those of the author.  I wonder what moral outrage means to such a one.   

[Gavin_Sons]

Whoever wrote that and whoever believes that article are snowflakes.  there is not much to think about. Not sure what part I'm suppose to think about. It was all ridiculous.

[Robert]

founder of Repairers of the Breach, 

Without a doubt totally and unequivocally clueless, sadly parading around as a man of the cloth.

If you thought that this was worth thought, then anything you say is suspect.


 Rev. Barber and I quote

"We need a moral movement to create change"

and the response to him is,

Matthew 7:5 : You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

[dreamaker]

Some times on Sunday mornings I watch some of those Freak Shows they call Evangelist. I feel a little uncomfortable and guilty for watching them, but I try and understand where they are coming from. There are good ones out there, but you have to look, and try and find them. It's not easy, there are some smooth operators out there, do the right thing and say the right stuff.  

[scooperhsd]

Now - it's not just what is on there -
 The Rev is also either a current or very recently past leader of the NC NAACP...

Usually a rabble rouser on TV. This is MUCH better than he comes off on TV.


And sadly - the responses above were about what I was expecting....

[Pete]

He could dramatically improve his view by opening his eyes and listen to other points of view.
I was not impressed with his thought process or conclusions.

But he has a right to make to speak, but it would be helpful if he engaged mind before mouth.

I wonder how dim one must be to buy into his logic.

[Gavin_Sons]

Now - it's not just what is on there -
 The Rev is also either a current or very recently past leader of the NC NAACP...

Usually a rabble rouser on TV. This is MUCH better than he comes off on TV.


And sadly - the responses above were about what I was expecting....

If you were expecting it, why is it so sad?  You knew exactly what you were opening...... A big ol' can of worms.

[Wizzard]

[specialdose]

    If his TV messages are worse than this they must really be pathetic.

[michaelyoung254]

The writer of this article (and I use that term loosely) obviously must have taken his lessons from many of the lame stream media pundits. It's obvious that he depends on the complete ignorance of his audience in order to pass this garbage off as anything other than the pure trash that it actually is.

[hubcapsc]

And sadly - the responses above were about what I was expecting....

What state did you live in before you moved to North Carolina? They probably
do stuff differently there.

-Mike

[Robert]

And sadly - the responses above were about what I was expecting....

What state did you live in before you moved to North Carolina? They probably
do stuff differently there.

-Mike

 

I think you would think less of all of us here if you introduced a POS and we didn't say anything. You mean being a racist and not knowing Gods plans and chastising people for the wrong thing and calling it a white backlash is all OK?

I think you would also enjoy Rev Wright

I think less of him for another reason if he is a church leader and saying what he says then he speaks contrary to the Bible. It is ironic at best and demonic at worst to speak those words from a pulpit with church garments on. Did you not think about this before bringing him up to make a point? Being in the military would you think to act contrary to the position you represented? What would you think of a person that brought up as an example a military person in a uniform that acted contrary to his position, saying he made good points?

[scooperhsd]

And sadly - the responses above were about what I was expecting....

What state did you live in before you moved to North Carolina? They probably
do stuff differently there.

-Mike

Grew up in Kansas. over 11 years USN service, lived in MO, FL (Pennsacola), VA (Norfolk), Newport RI, Boston MA, Fl (Jacksonville ) , Northern VA (National Capital region). When I was about to separate from the service, wife's job moved down here, so we decided to come down here. It's been pretty good, actually.


I actually had hoped there would be some considered reading and discussion, even if you didn't agree with it. I can actually see where he's coming from on this. It does take some imagination to take some of it further, but not that much.

[hubcapsc]

Thanks for your service 

-Mike

[Robert]

Why dont you tell us what you find so interesting and on the mark about this guys speech. You put this out there and dont say what you find OK about it. It was so off enough for me not to even want to see to much and get in depth about what he was saying, but I would be open to listening to your ideas on it. Maybe that could lead to the discussion that you wanted.

[FLAVALK]

Asshat

[RudyF6]

Only made it through the first paragraph.

The guy's obviously a racist turd.

[Wizzard]

Seems to me he is just a troll

[G-Man]

Why dont you tell us what you find so interesting and on the mark about this guys speech. You put this out there and dont say what you find OK about it. It was so off enough for me not to even want to see to much and get in depth about what he was saying, but I would be open to listening to your ideas on it. Maybe that could lead to the discussion that you wanted.

 

[Gryphon Rider]

I actually had hoped there would be some considered reading and discussion, even if you didn't agree with it. I can actually see where he's coming from on this. It does take some imagination to take some of it further, but not that much.

Okay, here's your considered discussion.

In expressing his "sadness for America" about the election results, he frames it only in terms of the election of Trump, representing "vulgarity unbounded".  He mentions nothing about the real sad reality of the election, that both parties presented terrible choices for the electorate.  The reality is, if the Democratic Party had presented a candidate more palatable to reasonable-minded conservatives, enough of them would have held their noses and voted Democrat rather than holding their noses to vote for Trump.

He is right in expressing Trump's election as inspiration for harassment and intimidation.  Some reprobates (and please stop trying to redefine this label as something honourable because Clinton painted all Trump supporters with it) have seen Trump's election as carte blanche to harass others, following the path of vigilantes in Duterte's Philippines, who are actually emboldened to kill alleged and untried drug dealers and users.

Barber creates a straw man when he paints Trump's voters as believing that "Obama is the bogeyman of coming diversity".  I'm pretty sure that most objections to Obama have nothing to do with his race, and more to do with his policies, Obamacare being one example, and lack of leadership in key areas, especially in race relations and reaction to natural disasters.

He adds fuel to the fire of racial divide when he paints all white Trump voters as racist, saying, "There could be no Donald Trump without America’s first black president."

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

He makes the accusation of "moral hypocrisy" and "theological heresy" against the Religious Right, but provides no examples or explanation of this.  I might be wrong, but I get the idea he has an extremely simplistic view of those he disagrees with:  Trump voters = Republican = white = Religious Right = black hater = unconcerned with disadvantaged.  When you make an accusation of hypocrisy or heresy (which are two completely different things) against a large group, one had better be able to prove it with specific examples and, with heresy, make a strong Biblical case that their teaching is heretical, not simply saying they are not loving their neighbor as themselves because they are doing something you don't like, or not doing what you think they should be doing.

He implies that all the scripture advocating for justice towards women, the stranger, et al, contradicts "the three" that condemn homosexuality.  That is simply not the case, and if he thinks scripture only deals with homosexuality three times, and in a way that can be easily explained away, his credibility as a preacher of the Gospel is on shaky ground.

He says that, "Moral framing allows us to change the language."  I hope he means reframing the discussion in an honest and moral direction.  All too often liberal activists redefine terms and create new ones in ways intended to demonize the positions of their opponents, or to otherwise dishonestly represent the views and motivations of their opponents.  Examples of this are abortion advocates creating the term "pro-choice," implying that anti-abortionists are anti-choice, when in fact they think there was usually a choice made earlier, and that there are better choices later, and the GLBTQ advocates calling their opponents "homophobic," implying that those who disagree with their actions and lifestyles have an irrational fear of GLBTQ people.

The overall implication of the article is that people who voted for Trump did so because they are heretical, hypocritical, and racist, because that's how most middle class white people are.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wow G.R. ! That was very well thought out and rational. There are a couple things I would quibble with, but 90% was on the money.

[hubcapsc]

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

It is a load of hooey. Reconstruction, especially in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, was a farce.
You hear a lot about the "KKK", but not much about the federally armed and supported all black
militias, or that South Carolina was garrisoned almost exclusively by USCT. Programs such as
the schools and the Blue Ridge Railroad were $inkholes of corruption. Wade Hampton hated
Reconstruction. Thomas Green Clemson hated Reconstruction. Even men like Martin Delany
went with the Southerners by the end of Reconstruction:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany

People who came of age in South Carolina during Reconstruction (like Ben Tillman) invented
Jim Crow to make sure nothing like Reconstruction ever happened again, and it lasted
100 years.

-Mike

[scooperhsd]

I actually had hoped there would be some considered reading and discussion, even if you didn't agree with it. I can actually see where he's coming from on this. It does take some imagination to take some of it further, but not that much.

Okay, here's your considered discussion.

In expressing his "sadness for America" about the election results, he frames it only in terms of the election of Trump, representing "vulgarity unbounded".  He mentions nothing about the real sad reality of the election, that both parties presented terrible choices for the electorate.  The reality is, if the Democratic Party had presented a candidate more palatable to reasonable-minded conservatives, enough of them would have held their noses and voted Democrat rather than holding their noses to vote for Trump.

He is right in expressing Trump's election as inspiration for harassment and intimidation.  Some reprobates (and please stop trying to redefine this label as something honourable because Clinton painted all Trump supporters with it) have seen Trump's election as carte blanche to harass others, following the path of vigilantes in Duterte's Philippines, who are actually emboldened to kill alleged and untried drug dealers and users.

Barber creates a straw man when he paints Trump's voters as believing that "Obama is the bogeyman of coming diversity".  I'm pretty sure that most objections to Obama have nothing to do with his race, and more to do with his policies, Obamacare being one example, and lack of leadership in key areas, especially in race relations and reaction to natural disasters.

He adds fuel to the fire of racial divide when he paints all white Trump voters as racist, saying, "There could be no Donald Trump without America’s first black president."

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

He makes the accusation of "moral hypocrisy" and "theological heresy" against the Religious Right, but provides no examples or explanation of this.  I might be wrong, but I get the idea he has an extremely simplistic view of those he disagrees with:  Trump voters = Republican = white = Religious Right = black hater = unconcerned with disadvantaged.  When you make an accusation of hypocrisy or heresy (which are two completely different things) against a large group, one had better be able to prove it with specific examples and, with heresy, make a strong Biblical case that their teaching is heretical, not simply saying they are not loving their neighbor as themselves because they are doing something you don't like, or not doing what you think they should be doing.

He implies that all the scripture advocating for justice towards women, the stranger, et al, contradicts "the three" that condemn homosexuality.  That is simply not the case, and if he thinks scripture only deals with homosexuality three times, and in a way that can be easily explained away, his credibility as a preacher of the Gospel is on shaky ground.

He says that, "Moral framing allows us to change the language."  I hope he means reframing the discussion in an honest and moral direction.  All too often liberal activists redefine terms and create new ones in ways intended to demonize the positions of their opponents, or to otherwise dishonestly represent the views and motivations of their opponents.  Examples of this are abortion advocates creating the term "pro-choice," implying that anti-abortionists are anti-choice, when in fact they think there was usually a choice made earlier, and that there are better choices later, and the GLBTQ advocates calling their opponents "homophobic," implying that those who disagree with their actions and lifestyles have an irrational fear of GLBTQ people.

The overall implication of the article is that people who voted for Trump did so because they are heretical, hypocritical, and racist, because that's how most middle class white people are.

THIS was more what I was hoping to see.  As I said - USUALLY Rev Barber has the same reaction on me as on the rest of you - I just thought this was better than his usual.  I did not expect anybody to completely agree with any of it - but some other considered opinions .  Sometimes the Rev comes off as racist to me - as in anti white. The wife and me also think he often comes across as a "media whore" - saying what will get him and his views (or some distortion ) on the news.

Now don't get me  - I don't think Trump is lily white / sun rises and sets on him either.  But he IS our lawfully elected President for EVERYBODY - not just his favored groups.



My personal views are more towards "treat others as you want to be treated" - like the golden rule .

[The emperor has no clothes]

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

It is a load of hooey. Reconstruction, especially in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, was a farce.
You hear a lot about the "KKK", but not much about the federally armed and supported all black
militias, or that South Carolina was garrisoned almost exclusively by USCT. Programs such as
the schools and the Blue Ridge Railroad were $inkholes of corruption. Wade Hampton hated
Reconstruction. Thomas Green Clemson hated Reconstruction. Even men like Martin Delany
went with the Southerners by the end of Reconstruction:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany

People who came of age in South Carolina during Reconstruction (like Ben Tillman) invented
Jim Crow to make sure nothing like Reconstruction ever happened again, and it lasted
100 years.

-Mike

At the risk of starting up a shitstorm. Which I hope doesn't happen. Are you in favor of Jim Crow Laws ?

[..]

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

It is a load of hooey. Reconstruction, especially in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, was a farce.
You hear a lot about the "KKK", but not much about the federally armed and supported all black
militias, or that South Carolina was garrisoned almost exclusively by USCT. Programs such as
the schools and the Blue Ridge Railroad were $inkholes of corruption. Wade Hampton hated
Reconstruction. Thomas Green Clemson hated Reconstruction. Even men like Martin Delany
went with the Southerners by the end of Reconstruction:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany

People who came of age in South Carolina during Reconstruction (like Ben Tillman) invented
Jim Crow to make sure nothing like Reconstruction ever happened again, and it lasted
100 years.

-Mike

At the risk of starting up a shitstorm. Which I hope doesn't happen. Are you in favor of Jim Crow Laws ?

So why do you bother?
Nothing changes.

[Gavin_Sons]

I actually had hoped there would be some considered reading and discussion, even if you didn't agree with it. I can actually see where he's coming from on this. It does take some imagination to take some of it further, but not that much.

Some reprobates (and please stop trying to redefine this label as something honourable because Clinton painted all Trump supporters with it)

You mean deplorable right?  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I can't comment on the accuracy of his summary of race relations and Reconstructionism following the Civil War, because I haven't studied that history.

It is a load of hooey. Reconstruction, especially in states like South Carolina and Mississippi, was a farce.
You hear a lot about the "KKK", but not much about the federally armed and supported all black
militias, or that South Carolina was garrisoned almost exclusively by USCT. Programs such as
the schools and the Blue Ridge Railroad were $inkholes of corruption. Wade Hampton hated
Reconstruction. Thomas Green Clemson hated Reconstruction. Even men like Martin Delany
went with the Southerners by the end of Reconstruction:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany

People who came of age in South Carolina during Reconstruction (like Ben Tillman) invented
Jim Crow to make sure nothing like Reconstruction ever happened again, and it lasted
100 years.

-Mike

At the risk of starting up a shitstorm. Which I hope doesn't happen. Are you in favor of Jim Crow Laws ?

So why do you bother?
Nothing changes.

Because I value Mikes opinion on matters of the South. I am interested in how he feels about it. Sorry it bothers you.

[Gryphon Rider]

I actually had hoped there would be some considered reading and discussion, even if you didn't agree with it. I can actually see where he's coming from on this. It does take some imagination to take some of it further, but not that much.

Some reprobates (and please stop trying to redefine this label as something honourable because Clinton painted all Trump supporters with it)

You mean deplorable right?  

D'oh! Yeah.

[Bighead]

GR I don't think the statement you made as Trumps election is inspiration for Harassment or intimidation. I personally think all it shows is that the average American is Fed up with the Bullshit we have been putting up with and want/need a change.

[Gavin_Sons]

GR I don't think the statement you made as Trumps election is inspiration for Harassment or intimidation. I personally think all it shows is that the average American is Fed up with the Bullshit we have been putting up with and want/need a change.

  I'm proud to be a deplorable. 

[hubcapsc]

Are you in favor of Jim Crow Laws ?

I didn't grow up during Reconstruction. I grew up after WWII, and Korea
and during Vietnam. What I saw was black men who paid our taxes
and fought in our wars who could only get jobs as waiters at the
cafeteria we ate at, and of course they labored at other jobs I
didn't see, agriculture, pouring concrete... I'm no fan of
Jessie Jackson and most of those other famous race baiters, but
I do recognize The Civil Rights Movement as black people lifting themselves
up and asserting their rights as citizens. Not the "civil rights" laws enacted
by the government, but The Civil Rights Movement that black people
orchestrated themselves without help from others.

I'm in favor of people who look down their noses at Ben Tillman,
and who say Reconstruction was some flowery renaissance period,
being labeled ignorant asshats. Let them grow up during Reconstruction,
perhaps they'd bend over for it, but Ben Tillman and most of the white
people in South Carolina didn't.

My father was in Europe during WWII, he witnessed aerial dogfights, and
the ovens, and destruction, but what he sent home in his v-mail from France
was "good god, they're feeding us with the niggers!"... I sure do miss him.

-Mike "they didn't have segregation in France..."

[The emperor has no clothes]

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, that's a no ?