I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station.. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David

.

Catholicism and Christianity have taken this attitude toward the Jews almost to their extinction. And Jews have sought a moral position(s) that superseeded that of the dominant culture. So we have these tussles in which the moral ‘key of the house of David’ is sought to ‘thrust those from office’ in really a supersessionism of its own.

We can all scroll up and read what you asked. It was not ‘how do you define racism’ but instead asked about whether it would be considered racist to vote for Obama because of his skin color. Not only are those two different questions, but your question carried the additional implication that racists may be voting for Obama rather than against him as Mr. Rosenbaum stated.

Now, racists may indeed be voting for Obama if you choose to define racists as people who aren’t afraid to acknowledge that people have different skin colors and may consider that fact when they make voting decisions. But that is a valueless and misleading way to look at racism. It’s a lot easier to avoid the risk of feeling guilty about race if you choose to define every conscientious, thinking person as a racist. That’s why I presented a more useful and more commonly accepted definition.

Maybe try looking at the actual arguments and goals of equal rights rather than just assuming they want everyone to be colorless (or white).

He may not say that being against Obama necessarily makes you racist, but the thrust of the above quote is subtly to link all Obama opponents to mere racists by claiming that the “anti-Obama cause” (falsely assumed to be some unified monolith) is being befouled by racists, and that this does necessarily implicate non-racist opponents (“you should know…your cause”, etc.). Sorry Ron…but MY cause is not being befouled by racists, because MY cause is much larger than mere opposition to Obama personally (on racial or any other grounds). MY cause is based on oposition to the fundamental political principals and ideology that he and his party stand for. He is merely the latest standard bearer for an odious statist ideology (not the the GOP is any better these days, having largely become statists themselves).

Ron didn’t say that being against Obama makes you a racist. And you know it.

On the one hand you say it’s ok to oppose Obama on issue grounds, but one the other hand you then try to link those same opponents to those who oppose Obama on purely racial grounds, thus essentially tarring all anti-Obama people as simple racists.

There are plenty of valid reasons (his ties with radical groups like ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation, his shady Daley/Chicago machine ties, his more-left-than-Kennedy-or-Clinton voting record despite his rhetoric about ‘post-partisanship’, his lack of adminstrative, diplomatic, military, or foreign policy experience, his more-extreme-than-NARAL pro-abortionism, etc.)to oppose Obama, and to tag opponents as being on cahoots with racists is itself merely part of the racial double game the Obama campaign is playing. He want’s to be seen as “post-racial”, yet he also clearly wants to use his own race to his advantage and to subtly tarr opponents as racists or fellow-travellers with racists.

For a candidate who claims to be “post-racial” and “post-partisan” he and his worshipers (yes, worshippers – see the latest YouTube video “American Prayer”) seem to have a fixation on race (read his first book – suffused as it is with racial obsessions, resenment, and anger). Funny how it’s ok for over 90% of blacks to support Obama and not be called racists, but if over 90% of whites supported McCain, we’d hear no end of talk about how racist white voters are.