lott is he a Christian or racist

It seems some conservatives have been criticizing Lott as well. Lott Faces Continuing Resentment From Conservatives

As for Clinton, I don't think the two things are analogous. Clinton's immorality with women was personal, individual, if you will. The only thing that made it more than that was the big stink that was made about it and his subsequent lying about the issue. But still, his infidelity affects far fewer people than a leader who embraces segregation. And, however good or bad this is, our society is much more willing to accept sexual immorality than racism.

That said, I think too much has been made out of Lott's comments. The implication was there, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he would certainly have known better than to consciously imply that racial segregation was (and is) a good idea.

I asked about Spike Lee on another thread, and in his interview this morning (which was actually about his new movie, but of course they asked him about Lott), he said Rice and Powell needed to be talking about the whole thing, and that it was telling that neither of them had. He suggested that they were puppets of a racist party and politicians, taking a paycheck in exchange for silence on racial issues. In fact, neither of them has defended Lott or his statements. Lee's just taking their silence to indicate assent, which, as good as it sounds, is a poor indication of such.

Edited to ask: Are the two (Christian and racist) mutually exclusive today?

[ December 17, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

I don't agree with you about Clinton, Kelly. His lying and sexual misconduct affected quite a few people. I'm not agruing that what lott said was not racist. Clinton was the leader of the free world, he should of been held to higher standards than everyone else. He was our leader. As for Lott, I think people are reading things into his statement that aren't there. I agree with you on the point that the liberals are jumping on this to force out a conservative. Rick

 

As a reminder, the conservative tag line at the time was not that Clinton couldn't keep his fly zipped, but that he lied about it. There was a conservative leader who, at the time, was also caught in a compromising act, so it was necessery to keep from looking like the pot calling the kettle black.

In other words, the issue at the time was Clinton's lying, not his infidelity. Oterwise, we'd have to jump on quite a few political folks of the past, such as Eisenhower, Jefferson, and Washington.

 

As for his seat in the Senate, I'll leave that to the people of Mississippi.
Agreed. That should be for his constituents to decide, not me.

As for his leadership of the Senate Republicans, that is entirely another matter.
Likewise, I'll be happy to let the Republicans decide this for themselves, not me.

 

When Clinton impeachment hearings were ongoing it was a witch hunt.

When Clarence Thomas was falsely accused it was ok.

Is there a double standard? Definetely!

Is it "fair". No, but then life is not fair, we are in a spiritual battle, and as Christians we are to look to the Lord, not the politicians for our peace.
As one reads of the early martyrs they had the one thing that the persecutors could not destroy. The peace of God that passes all understanding.

We won't have responsible goernment until Christ reigns on Earth.

The Bible tells us that men will get worse and they are, sadly not just the lost world; too many who name the name of Christ no longer stand for righteousness, but rather please the flesh.. Is it no wonder our elected officials are corrupt? Our pulpits are filled with compromisers who have sacrificed righteousness for a crowd.




Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Romans 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Romans 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


[/b

 

I agree. Lott was not politically correct. He didn't stop to consider that his statements might be "perceived" by others as offensive. Of course in our upside down world, this sin is far more severe than adultery, attempted rape, and lying.

His greatest crime however is being a conservative Republican. That is why the treatment of Clarence Thomas was not racism... it was perpetrated by Democrats. If the same treatment had been given to a liberal black nominee do you think the attackers wouldn't have been charged with racism... especially in light of the hub-bub over Lott's very ambiguous remarks?

Sorry but I don't think you would apply the same standard if we were talking about an executive of a private company. It stopped being personal or individual when it occurred in his place of business, the Oval Office. What Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky has a legal name, sexual harassment. What he did with Broderick also has a name, sexual assault. I never did figure out why no one made these an issue.

As a manager, I have endured hours of warnings about doing exactly what he did because it is illegal. We were told that as a supervisor or manager our "power" constituted a factor that rendered any sexual relationship with a subordinate unacceptable even if the subordinate considered it consentual. Not only this but such a relationship also opened the door to any other employee in the dept making a complaint about an oppressive work environment.

Immorality and dishonesty in leadership always effects the led.

Neither should be acceptable. Both have the power to erode our culture.

 

Here's the problem that I see:

1) First, I don't think Lott's comment was racist, it appears to me to just be a general compliment to Thurmond.

2) But, Lott has apologized about 87 times, asked forgiveness, promised to change etc. etc.

Those two things don't go together. So, it has to be either:

he DID intend racism in his comments

or

his apology in insincere and a cheap attempt at saving his political job.

Can't be both, and has to be one or the other.

 

Lott shouldn't lose his job because of what he said... he should lose it because he is a moral coward. But that isn't a new development. If he actually led the Senate during the impeachment, Clinton would have been removed from office. Instead, Lott showed his true colors by playing politics and cutting deals.

From all appearances, whatever payoff he thought he might get from Clinton and the Dems wasn't very valuable. Maybe the liar Clinton reneged on whatever he promised Lott too.

 

I've been to Mississippi, and I think Lott pretty much represents the voice of the people in power in that State. That's a shame, but it is representative of the people of that State. (Tenn is not much better)

I think Lott's spanking by the rest of America, is also an extension to the people still in power in these Southern States that this kind of thought and belief is outdated and must now be changed. Lott should accept it and step down from his charge over the rest of the Senators as he now must be over biased toward minorities and that equally is unfair.

I also have to agree that Pen. Jim pegged this pretty well.

[ December 20, 2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Boy Post-It, I am amazed at how authoritative your experience is and how they validate your broad generalizations.

I guess since the only glimpse of race relations in Texas that most of us have had is a black man being drug from the back of a pick up truck, we should assume this incident as representative and say that you favor lynching.

 

I thought I was generalizing too until the State's highest Representative made a statement that tipped the barrel.

Of course I don't think most there feel that way, but there is certainly more than there should be, and with leaders like Lott, there will continue to be more.

 

What Lott said I have heard many people in my town say he was right. Does that mean they are racists? No, especially if you understand where they are coming from and not get your view of the south from Mississipi Burning. Many in the South are disgusted with Federal busing where a school in order to be intergrated has to be over 50% black. This has led to a white exodus to Private and parochial schools because many whites do not want their children to be bused out of their neighborhoods or standing waiting for a school bus at 6 AM in the morning. East Baton Rouge Schools are still under a Federal desegregation order because of the NAACP in that all schools must be majority black to be considered intergrated.

Most people I know don't have a problem with intergration but they do have a problem with some of the Federal guidelines regarding it. There are 2 sides to every story and very frankly I get tired of hearing the term racist being use to refer to people who disagree.

[ December 21, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

It would be VERY interesting to do a search, (no, I'm not gonna do it cause I spend enough time on this fool machine anyway & I'm not gonna add more just to confirm what I already know) and see just how many issues have come up that the likes of JJ, Sharpton, NAACP, the Dems etc have yelled "RACIST" where thre is no hint of race being involved until one or all of them decided to bring it up!!

Have you ever considered the predicament all these & their like would be in IF you had to legally prove "RACISM"? Most (not all, but MOST) of the rhetoric is about manufactured problems; if a black and white are involved, regardless of the issue, it's fair game to become "RACIST".

If the above were true, all the aforementioned would be "BROKE, or BADLY BENT" as this is a primary source of revenue and power! (Sorry, the Dems do have Hollywood)