Are you talking about this article? I tend to give him a bit of a pass given his age and health.

However, he

Good grief, people. :rolleyes: Is this an example of the unnecessary suspicion and faulty logic that we will be dealing with for the next 4 or more years just because there is a black president? Let's get over ourselves.

I like Billy Graham and this is most likely because of his age and health rather than not wanting to mentor a black president. Billy Graham has been loved and respected by black people (and vice versa) for decades. In fact, there is still material on Billy Graham's take on racism and prejudice floating around if people want to read it.

The Ronald Reagan seance comment was stupid. I cringed. Obama called Nancy Reagan to apologize. I think the conservatives have had enough of nitpicking so aside from some remarks about it they will let it slide.

Obama's going to need to think more on his feet and not get too comfortable/cocky. He talks slow enough and does enough "uh...."s to be thinking about what he says. Leave the off-hand jokes in your head, Obama. Now we need more substance and less talking.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.seance/

I don't think its a snub - Billy Graham is 90 afterall (and needs a walker) so I would think its moreso due to health. Although this is hardly publicized, Billy Graham believed in a message of Christ for all people and worked with Martin Luther King Jr. and others in the civil rights movement in softening the hearts of those that felt otherwise.

I believe you mean "Good grief, person."

Billy Graham was also known for anti-Semitic remarks, as well as remarks against Black people. Not to mention the fact that he was a member of a country club that had a clear policy against allowing Blacks to join.

Sorry, but I don't give him any license. It's not paranoia or suspicion that fosters my thinking on this point. If you are in such failing health, how do you still have time to run a ministry and write a book? Besides, according to his family Billy Graham has been in failing health for YEARS, sometimes giving the impression that he was on the brink of death. Yet he still had enough strength to mentor Bush.

I mean "people."

Her sentiment is shared by others.

Ah, so you weren't referring to any of the other posts. I see.

It was obvious that you didn't share her sentiment.

Along with HoneyKiss. I was surprised at the degree of emphasis, that's all.

Yeah, I can read. ;)

So now you know that I know that you know. I was responding to deepimact's post as a general sentiment. Cool.

:cool:

Actually you need to get over yourself. It's not faulty logic. Point blank there will be things that happen simply because Obama is black. Not everything negative that happens will be because he's black, and intelligent people know that. :rolleyes:

Then the point has been made.

Thanks for coming back after-the-fact and admitting this. :)

DrPhil,

This is definitely a case of suspicion but, so what?
If you don't like it, get out the thread. Just b/c you like Billy Graham, and...the significance of that is what? Racism is pervasive throughout America. AAs didn't make it that way. As you know, this country was founded on racism. I don't know what your experience is like on a day to day basis but, unless you live every day as someone who is discriminated against, you may not see things the way that an AA does. We experience racism on so many different levels, from job evaluations, to being able to get the job in the first place. President-Elect Obama's educational background was two to three times that of John McCain and the mental lightweight, Sarah Palin. Yet, they were virtually tied in the polls for many weeks, very late into the election period. This country is suffering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression yet, again, they were tied in the polls for many weeks, very late into the election period. There are STILL people saying that they, "just don't like that man." They just cannot put their finger on it, his economic policies benefit THEM - yet, they just don't like him. Yes, racism is pervasive in this country. We will continue to talk about it if we think it's going on. Just like you would like for posters in this thread to get over themselves, I would challenge America to get over itself. There have been 43 white men - in a row - who have held the highest office in this land. Yet, now that there is JUST ONE who is not of that description, folk are wearing black to work and stating that they are in mourning, there have been uprisings in schools by white students in Georgia, it is pathetic. So, this is why there is suspicion. Every instance of something that cannot be proved starts with suspicion...whether it is race-based or not. So what's wrong with it? Especially given the history of this country, I don't think that it's ridiculous.


(And this post applies no matter your race - even if you are AA DrPhil)


ETA: Now please get into the other thread centering on POSITIVITY and what President-Elect Obama should do first after his inauguration, since you are so concerned with Billy Graham.

SC

So, in different ways, preciousjeni, HoneyKiss, and I believe the suspicion is unfounded. Agree or disagree, it's all just speculation that shouldn't be taken seriously.

But this isn't just about Billy Graham which is why I want us to "get over ourselves" and think "good grief, people" a lot of times when I hear (usually, black) people talk about the Obama presidency. ;)

If an Obama presidency is going to spark this type of unfounded paranoia and unfounded speculation then this is going to be a tiring presidency. There's nothing POSITIVE about conspiracy theorizing if POSITIVITY is what people are going for. There's a difference in tone when addressing the realities or possibilities (which is what discussions of race and racism are really about) versus being suspicious or expecting the worst. Unfounded paranoia and unfounded suspicion of intents and motives (i.e. Billy Graham's) is silly whether it's coming from disappointed McCain supporters or Obama supporters. Period.

Obama isn't going to be told "yes" everytime a decision needs to be made during this presidency. If that's going to be interpreted in a racially charged manner more often than not, even in the absence of some type of evidence, then we have a long and bumpy road ahead of us.

Well said. I want to add something in particular in reference to the statement you made that I put in bold. There are MANY people who would benefit from Obama's policies, but refused to vote for him. Joe the "plumber" is one of them. In fact, I smirked for a good hour on election day when a reporter called Joe out on this very issue. The reporter pointed out that Joe's salary barely hit the $34,000 mark and that he would actually be helped under Obama's plan. The reporter then proceeded to ask Joe why he still chose to vote for McCain. Joe immediately became irate and I never heard such stuttering in all my life. Basically he couldn't even articulate a reason as to why he wanted to vote for McCain in light of that information. Disgusting, but it generally shows the racial attitudes of people in this country.

You seem to think that any accusations arise out of unfounded paranoia and suspicion. What exactly would it take for you to believe that something is happening because of Obama's race? You probably don't even think those white supremacists were planning to kill Obama because of his race. Of course they just wanted to kill him because they don't like his economic policies. :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone on this board has stated that Obama should receive a "yes" on every decision. You are taking this entirely too far. You sound like one of those individuals who likes to sweep racism under the rug and pretend it doesn't exists...even when it's staring you in the face. Or maybe you just don't recognize racism unless it's blatant. You also sound like one of those individuals who will now challenge any accusations of racism by pointing out that we now have a black president and so racism couldn't POSSIBLY exist.:rolleyes:

You described me perfectly. :D So much for "unfounded suspicion and unfounded paranoia."

From skimming your responses, I don't think we really disagree on the larger point. You already said that jumping to a racialized conclusion is something that intelligent people won't do for everything. When you choose to come to a racialized conclusion is up to you but, what can be interpreted as, conjecture will receive a variety of responses.

Where did you get that from?

Well, maybe all except my father -- he shot out an email about this to the family last night. I figured as a life-long conservative and straight Republican voter no matter the candidate or the issues over the years, he'd be disappointed in the election result. Turns out the man is flat-out PISSED. Woops. :rolleyes::p
Interestingly enough, I just heard Graham's 2 grandsons on NPR this morning, they've just released a book about Graham's ministry. You can listen to the interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=96778336

During the interview, his grandsons describe him as a "50-year-old in a 90-year-old's body". He's apparently sharp as a tack, but his body is failing. This article gives insight into just how unwell he's been/is (and that he does very much want to meet and pray with Obama): http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...RFsIAD94ALAGO0

Graham is known for breaking down racial barriers and refusing to preach to segregated crowds in the south starting back in the 50s: http://www.vop.com/previous_broadcas...jan/99034.html

He's also a registered Democrat, though he's ministered Republican Presidents as well as Democrats. I have no doubt that Billy Graham is celebrating the election of the nation's first African American President with most of the rest of the country and would have been on a plane to see him if it were physically possible for him.

I'm sure Obama will be as imperfect as every other president and will give your father plenty of material over the years. You may want to consider a "block sender" to spare yourself. :p

But these people with a strong desire to disparage President Obama ad nauseum are not operating with a full deck. It is not like, hey, I disagree with this aspects of his policies. It is about I HATE--after that it blocks one's ability to listen.

Now as far as Billy Graham's concern, he is a very sick old man. He cannot speak like he use to for presidents past. Do I think its racism because he cannot? No. I think like you said his age and illnesses are affecting him.

Yes, President Obama is definitely going to make mistakes in his presidency. And the pundits will grossly disparage him like prey. And it will be his first misstep, where they will exclaim, "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!!!" with seething anger to implement his policies progression... Then again, it might now happen and hopefully it won't happen in that manner.

But I suggest not to be shocked when that tiny misdeed, smaller than other presidencies past, will not be overblown by the pundits... No, we are not talking about criticism. That is different. We are talking about blatant slander, withholding information, ignoring gag orders, etc. Criminal activities.

I won't be surprised if Grahams' sons assume the role of spiritual mentor to the presidents, including Obama.

Neither are some (if not, many) of Obama's supporters. The crazy and the silly go both ways. I just want people on both sides to breathe easy.

There are plenty of straws to go around without having to grasp for them.

I understand the bounty of straws.

But how do you explain the over exhilaration and exuberance upon learning of President Obama's win?

On the part of Obama supporters? People are happy for a few reasons.

That doesn't mean that all the happy people are operating with a full deck. It doesn't mean that all the unhappy people aren't operating with a full deck. There are crazy and silly people and rhetoric on both ends. I judge it based on what all of these people say and not based on the dichotomy of supporter/nonsupporter.

Even folks in other countries who inherently cannot vote in this one were excited. I doubt they were "bona fide Obama supporters"--more like anybody but Bush--or who ever their leader was that told them to support... So much for a free society!

Whether decks are full or not, they are stacked, nonetheless... And what they say is not a reflection of support or lack there of IMHO. It's more a matter of ignorance and closed-mindedness...

I tire rather quickly of people spouting off info about Graham's history concerning civil rights. All of that is pretty much negated by the fact that, as I mentioned previously, he was willing to maintain membership in a country club that prided itself on segregation. Rather hypocritical of someone to refuse to preach to a segregated crowd, but go play tennis on a segregated court.

I just can't muster up the same warm, fuzzy feelings that so many others seem to have for him. I don't think people really see him for who he is. Just because he's a minister means nothing. There are many ministers that preach fiery sermons, leave the pulpit, and go put on a hood and a robe. And there were many ministers who were active in civil rights issues, but still didn't believe that we were equal to them...let alone that one of us should be president.


And I'm well aware that he's a Democrat. That really has nothing to do with anything.

As for him wanting to pray with Obama...he had his chance. He chose not to when Obama asked to meet with him. Obama shouldn't even bother with it at this point. I think it may be a blessing in disguise that this is happening, but I just don't like the reasoning behind it.

DrPhil,

My comment re POSITIVITY is the thread directed to what President-Elect Obama should do first when he gets into office. Why don't you go over there instead of just nitpicking things in this thread?

I think that most folk don't want to contribute to anything re POSITIVITY.

ETA: Why don't ya'll ALL go over to my thread about CHANGE and POSITIVITY instead of nitpicking with DrPhil about this. Some energy is better spent ignoring some folk and taking an active approach for change. This argument is like the one in which women get together and commesurate about how there are no good men. Some will never believe otherwise and yet, you are spending the time that you could be going out and finding a mate (if it means that much too you, big whup) or you can spend your time disputing this issue with the women that are convinced and want to believe what they want to believe and are happier just nitpicking everything.

Threads on this message board go on for pages and pages about whether Michelle's dress was not attractive, how it's hard to find a man, and other tons of silly, petty and/or negative crap - take your pick. Positive threads hardly get any traction at all. This is one of the only substantive positive threads that has gotten any traction. Let's keep it that way and lend our energy to others like it. Focus on positivity. The other stuff is just draining and useless.

Now get over to my other thread!! :)

SC

But you didn't ignore me. ;)

Some people get the point of this discussion and don't view it as a negative. I consider it to be an active approach for change for a number of reasons. You don't have to so you do what you consider to be an active approach for change. Dialogue isn't one-sided and you can't govern others' participation in discussions on or off the internet. Those of you who don't see the point of this topic and think it's nitpicky can govern yourselves by typing about whatever else you want to type about. Pretty basic message board guidelines. :)