If we, as our goal, work towards fully understanding where we agree and disagree, then we can work together inside the conversation. We can share the same goal. We can be a team.

I’m trying to bring this nation together! God forbid we should engage in the type of conversation which promotes divisiveness… Such conversation wouldn’t do anything to help Michelle Obama’s children

You and I, being persons of sincere intention, communications skills, and reasoning skills, should be able to carry a conversation to a point where we both clearly understand where we disagree. So, where do we disagree?

1. You believe Sen. Helms was condemning people, and thus was revealing bigotry.

I believe Sen. Helms was condemning action, and thus was revealing his particular Biblical interpretation.

2. You believe Sen. Helms interpretation of homosexuality as choice was so egregiously, obviously wrong that acting upon his interpretation actually constituted bigoted action.

I believe the case for homosexuality as nature has not been so clearly made. Further,

3. I do not believe homosexual rights are violated if government failed to fund AIDs research. I do not see how Sen. Helms’ actions oppressed homosexuals, and I therefore do not consider that his actions – in and of themselves – can be fairly characterized as bigoted or oppressive.

You disagree (please correct if I misrepresent you).

4. Re: your Africa vs. America argument as evidence of hatred/spite:
According to your own argument, Sen. Helms showed consistency via sending money to heterosexual AIDs sufferers and withholding money from homosexual AIDs sufferers. This intellectual consistency weakens your theory that Sen. Helms acted out of hatred or spite.

You say: weaken shmeaken. The man acted out of hatred/spite. I know it, and anyone with any common sense knows it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I missed anything, please add in. I want us to be able to say: here’s where we disagree: here, here, here. I want us to clearly understand where we each stand on our points of disagreement. You and I should not walk away with any haziness or muddled-ness between us. If the air is clear, then we can each at least understand and respect how and why the other person has a different opinion.

Finally: blue eyes are timeless. As for Christian wingnuts: vive la difference! You know I’m your boo. Admit it!

What Christian has a problem with his anti-homosexuality stand?

People want to focus on his racial insensitivites, but as a black man, he may not have cared for us, but white women weren’t the only ones having abortions either. Will someone here compare the loss of 14 million blacks, as opposed to 28 million whites?

I NEVER heard Jesse publicly utter the word nigger.

Oh ye! I am anti-affirmative action as well.

I surged out that paragraph to show that these are not fringe communities. I also say, with certainty, these parishioners do not hate homosexuals. In fact, these churches are critically important to providing community services which include much loving help for homosexuals in need. I can’t tell you how wrong you are – 180 degrees wrong – if you believe these parishioners hate or despise homosexuals.

Do they believe homosexuality is an abomination? Yes. So is alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, not caring for your children or your aged parents, and spending too much time reading and commenting on blogs! Do they hate homosexuals, alcoholics, or me for staying up late to compose these comments? No! They have love for homosexuals, and for me – as fallible persons we all are. I’m working from memory, but I’m pretty sure I’m accurate: over 80% of megachurch voters voted for GWB in 2004. Do those voters hate you b/c you wanted John Kerry to be President? Do they hate you for horribly mischaracterizing their opinions and their committment and their faith? No, they do not. They love you.

Now, if you want to believe these truly wonderful people are attacking the personhood of homosexuals, you get to hold that opinion. The point is, these particular Evangelicals do not believe they are attacking the personhood of homosexuals. They are not coming from a foundation of bigotry. They are coming from a widespread interpretation of scripture.

It seems you consider it an abomination, or some type of horrible thing, for a government to not fund AIDs research. I disagree. America was founded on the idea of universal God given rights. Americans have no God given right to have the government fund medical research on whatever particular diseases particular Americans have. Such is the job of private enterpirse. Government funding, if it occurs, is not a right but a gift. It is not an abomination, or a horrible thing, or an indication of bigotry, to fail to bestow a gift.

I do not think Saudi males hate women. I do think Saudi males deprive women of their God given rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness through driving(little joke!). Denying God given rights is morally different from failing to bestow a gift.

One aspect of your argument, it seems to me, comes down to: Evangelicals/Sen. Helms denied (or wanted to deny) rightful rights(TM!) to homosexuals. I disagree.

I kinda agree with this, but, nevertheless, here I go again….

You write:
You have said that Jesse Helms should not be considered a hater and a homophobe because he belongs to a religion that preaches hate and homophobia.

If you are saying Christianity, or mainstream evangelical churches, teach hatred of human beings: you are misinformed.

No, I think you’re forgetting what you yourself wrote. I’m referring to *your* characterization of the church/religious sect that *Jesse Helms* belonged to.

Once again, here it is:

“In the following Helms quotes, it’s important to understand Sen. Helms is coming from a particular subset southern Christian perspective in which
a) the Bible is interpreted as declaring homosexuality to be an abomination, and
b) every Sunday is about loving the sinner(of all types) and hating the sin(of all types).”

I make no judgment nor do I come to any conclusion as to which Christian denominations subscribe to this point of view. I know with certainty that not all contemporary Christian faith communities believe this. In fact, probably many or most don’t. Beyond that, I do not claim to be able to identify all the sects that do or don’t.

I have visited evangelical churches … well .., for sure over fifty times – if not double that number. They teach hatred of sin, and love of people. They teach that we are all consistent sinners. They pray, in every church service, “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.”

One of the difficulties I have with the above (only one of many, but it’s perhaps the easiest for me to articulate right now) is that “sin” is specifically a Christian concept, and I am not Christian. I don’t believe in “sin” the way it’s thought of and defined in the kind of churches you’re talking about.

I’m sure this raises all sorts of questions for you, but this is such a profound and complicated subject that it’s hard for me to address it at length in a blog comment. Of course, if you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

Sen. Helms was not calling human beings disgusting and unnatural. He was calling homosexual activity disgusting and unnatural. It’s easy to glaze over this distinction, and to miss it, if you haven’t spent time around evangelical thinking.

Yes, but there is no such thing as homosexual activity that is separate from the person engaging in the activity. Gay or lesbian or homosexual, whatever term you want to use, is what a person *is,* not what a person does. Telling gays and lesbians that their behavior is disgusting and unnatural is the same as telling them that who they are is disgusting and unnatural. It’s not like telling your best friend who’s chewing with his mouth open or slurping his soup that he’s being disgusting. It is not possible to separate who one loves from how one expresses that love. This is about how a person falls in love and with whom, and the only choice is whether one is going to keep those things secret from the world or whether one is going to be honest about those things.

When Jesse Helms attacked homosexuality as “disgusting and unnatural” and said that everyone with AIDS was a sodomist, he was not just attacking behavior; he was attacking the personhood of every individual who is gay or lesbian and/or has AIDS. That is not love.

Was Sen. Helms acting out of bigotry against human beings, or out of what he perceived as righteous, principled opposition to sin?

What difference does that make, if Helms’ idea of what constitutes “sin” was rooted in ignorance and was just plain wrong? This goes to trying to fathom the human heart again, and as you have said, no one can do that. What I care about is that people take responsibility for educating themselves so that they don’t act out of ignorance. In this day and age, there is simply no excuse for anyone to believe that same-sex attraction is any more abnormal or perverted than being left-handed or having blue eyes (and I qualify for both).

If you don’t agree, ask yourself if you would feel the same way about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia (or any number of other places in the world). When women are denied the right to an education, to drive cars or go out in public without being attended by a husband or male relative, to have sexual relationships outside of marriage, etc., etc., is that coming from hatred of women, or is it coming from what the Saudi male believes to be righteous, principled opposition to sin? Should civilized, humane people condemn such treatment of women and such beliefs about women, or should they argue that such behavior and such beliefs indicate only that Saudi males hate sin, but not that they hate women?

Maybe we can find some areas of agreement.

I concede there might be evidence Sen. Helms was a bigot during the 1950s and 1960s.

Our primary point of contention becomes:
Can we know if Sen. Helms was motivated by bigotry during the 1980s and 1990s?

It’s likely most bigots in the 1980s and 1990s neither publicly admitted their bigotry nor committed identifiable acts of bigotry. Does Sen. Helms belong in this group?

I say: if he was bigoted, he belongs in this group of unidentifiable bigots.

You say: He identified himself as a bigot via his words and his actions.

And, maybe we should stop at this point, and say we each clearly understand the view of the other.

The problem is: we are possibly both in impossible positions of trying to prove negatives. You are trying to prove: Sen. Helms does not belong in the group of unidentifiable bigots. I am trying to prove: Sen Helms did not identify himself as a bigot. Neither of us – and no one else, for that matter – can prove a negative.

Even if I am wrong about these being “prove a negative” situations, it’s clear that neither of us is going to sway to the other viewpoint at this time. I would sway, if I found evidence Sen. Helms had spoken or acted as a bigot. However, that’s a high bar to clear, and none of your evidence clears it, imo. I have fantasized, for tiny moments, you might see your proffered evidence does not clear the bar of reasonability. Bah! I may as well fantasize Barack represents a new type of hope and change politics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would like my views clearly known on a couple of points. If you have other points you want addressed, I will comply.

I accuse neither Sen. Helms (circa 1980s and 1990s) nor Rev. Jeremiah Wright of racial hatred. I quote myself (a narcissist’s thrill!):

Later, recalling LaShawn Barber’s words: “none of us can see into another’s heart”, it occurred to me that I cannot know if Rev. Wright has racial hatred in his heart, and therefore I slandered Rev. Wright by calling him a racist. I apologize, Rev. Wright. As I further mulled Rev. Wright, I came to doubt my original opinion that he has racial hatred in his heart. I now suspect he does not.

I do accuse Rev. Wright of such intellectual racial buffoonery that Barack is disqualified – based on Barack’s own intellectual racial buffoonery in remaining in those pews – from receiving my vote. Yet, that is not racism. That is intellectual buffoonery and disagreement.

There’s a notable difference between
a) failure to recruit black persons into an all white church; and, for instance
b) overtly advocating white people work to gain economic advantage specifically at the expense of black people. The racial element of that formulation is pernicious.

You write:
You have said that Jesse Helms should not be considered a hater and a homophobe because he belongs to a religion that preaches hate and homophobia.

If you are saying Christianity, or mainstream evangelical churches, teach hatred of human beings: you are misinformed.

I have visited evangelical churches … well .., for sure over fifty times – if not double that number. They teach hatred of sin, and love of people. They teach that we are all consistent sinners. They pray, in every church service, “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.”

You write:
And he believes in the religion! How can it be called homophobia, then, for him to have called homosexuals “disgusting” and “unnatural” when his religious faith instructs him to believe thus?

Sen. Helms was not calling human beings disgusting and unnatural. He was calling homosexual activity disgusting and unnatural. It’s easy to glaze over this distinction, and to miss it, if you haven’t spent time around evangelical thinking. Excerpts from those Obsidian Wings quotes(bolding is mine):

“unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior

the sin of sodomy … I confess I regard it [the act] as an abomination

deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct

“Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches.”

Notice Sen. Helms did not say the persons were degenerate. He said the act was degenerate. Notice you can still love a person (think drug addict, alcoholic) who is a weak, morally sick wretch. I myself am a weak, morally sick wretch a good bit of the time.

You write:
[Sen. Helms] advocated standing by and watching while hundreds of thousands of gay men died from a disease for which he refused to fund research for treatments or a cure.

Was Sen. Helms acting out of bigotry against human beings, or out of what he perceived as righteous, principled opposition to sin? I think Sen. Helms was wrong, btw, if he opposed all funding to jumpstart a cure for AIDs. I can see where he might’ve wanted to effect “tough love” which would save lives in the long run. If so, I believe he was misguided. Sen. Helms said this in one of the Obsidian Wings quotes:

“The government should spend less money on people with AIDS….”

Are you certain Sen. Helms opposed all funding for AIDs research? The quote reads as if he might have supported some funding.

You raised other, peripheral premises and points with which I disagree, yet which do not seem prudent to address at this time. I reserve the right to address them in future, if need arises.

Sincerely,
Your Christian Wingnut Boo

As you say, Helms’ heart, such as it was, is beyond parsing (and was even before he died, obviously). However, there is no doubt in my mind that supporting health programs for AIDS sufferers in Africa while refusing to fund a penny for AIDS research or prevention or care in his own country, while at the same time using the cruelest, most vile and vicious language to characterize AIDS sufferers in this country, was among the most disgusting things Helms ever did.

“It occurs to me that, if Jesse Helms was the Satan you and the Democratic Party depict, then the 1980s era and 1990s era voters of North Carolina were notable dupes and bigots. They had lots of evidence of what kind of man Sen. Helms was, yet they continually voted him back into office. You are arguing that North Carolina voters are contemptible. It’s possible. I say it’s more likely that a 1990s era Jesse Helms sent money to Africa because he genuinely wanted to help people in need, whatever their color.”

Jesse Helms never won an election for senator with more than 56% of the vote in his home state. His campaign strategy was always designed to appeal to white racist sentiment. He did not run broad-based campaigns that aimed to get the votes of black North Carolinians as well as whites. He deliberately courted the votes of whites who hated and feared black people, and settled in exchange for a lower margin of victory.

So, no, the people who voted for him were not contemptible dupes. They knew exactly what they were doing, and who they were voting for, and why.

“Jeremiah Wright

? I’m trying to understand your point.”

My point is that I find it striking you can write something like this about Helms:

“In the following Helms quotes, it’s important to understand Sen. Helms is coming from a particular subset southern Christian perspective in which
a) the Bible is interpreted as declaring homosexuality to be an abomination, and
b) every Sunday is about loving the sinner(of all types) and hating the sin(of all types).”

but reject a parallel justification for Jeremiah Wright, to wit:

“It’s important to understand that Jeremiah Wright is coming from a particular generation that came of age before the civil rights movement began. Jeremiah Wright is coming from a perspective of having seen daily examples of white’s hatred of blacks and desire to keep them down. Plus, you have to remember that Jeremiah Wright had parents and grandparents, and siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles and friends, all of whom grew up in the context of a rigidly segregated society in which black people effectively could not vote, could not eat or drink or shop or play or live with whites, had to watch where they walked and how they walked and what they said and how they said it, because if they slipped even for a moment, the consequence could be a brutal beating or worse. You have to remember that Jeremiah Wright has probably been called “nigger” and heard the word “nigger” from whites directed at blacks thousands of times in his life. ”

You have said that Jesse Helms should not be considered a hater and a homophobe because he belongs to a religion that preaches hate and homophobia. And he believes in the religion! How can it be called homophobia, then, for him to have called homosexuals “disgusting” and “unnatural” when his religious faith instructs him to believe thus?

But about Jeremiah Wright, you do NOT say that he should not be accused of hating white people because he grew up with white racism. You do NOT say that Jeremiah Wright does not hate white people at all; he just hates what white people do and have done.

The idea that Jeremiah Wright is a racist for saying that white America has been bad to African-Americans (my paraphrase, obviously, but essentially what he has said) but Jesse Helms is not at all a racist for accepting a radio show listener’s praise for everything he’s done to “keep down the niggers” or that he is not at all a homophobe for saying that gay and lesbian Americans are “disgusting” and “unnatural” and “make him want to throw up,” is truly astonishing.

“I will not vote for a candidate who sat 20 years, up until last year, in a church which:
a) discriminates according to skin color, and
b) advocates “institutional redistribution of wealth”. ”

Jesse Helms sat for considerably more than 20 years in a church that discriminated according to skin color. You don’t think there were any black people in Jesse Helms’ church, do you? You know the old joke about Sunday at 11 am being the most segregated hour in the whole week, right?

“Sen. Helms did not advocate confiscating personal property (money) according to a citizen’s sexual preference.”

No, he just advocated standing by and watching while hundreds of thousands of gay men died from a disease for which he refused to fund research for treatments or a cure.

“A person may fiercely, intellectually disagree with Sen. Helms. That means Sen. Helms would never get that person’s vote. It does not mean Sen. Helms was either a bigot or Satan.”

Substitute “Jeremiah Wright” for “Sen. Helms” in those two sentences and the statement is equally true, wouldn’t you say?

I agree that a person may disagree, fiercely, with Sen. Helms, or with Jeremiah Wright, or with any given politician or public figure, and that does not necessarily mean the politician or public figure is a racist . It’s not, of course, *disagreement* that makes someone a racist. It’s beliefs, words, and actions.

I will, however, grant you that Sen. Helms was not Satan. That title was meant to be hyperbolic, not literal. I don’t believe there is a Satan, anyway, in literal, religious terms, so I could hardly believe that Sen. Helms was Satan. That said, he *was* consumed and eaten up by a virulent social disease — for that is what racism is.

I didn’t understand it before. Forget caveats. You’re workin a theory. Jesse Helms was a devious conniver. Your theory could be true.

It occurs to me that, if Jesse Helms was the Satan you and the Democratic Party depict, then the 1980s era and 1990s era voters of North Carolina were notable dupes and bigots. They had lots of evidence of what kind of man Sen. Helms was, yet they continually voted him back into office. You are arguing that North Carolina voters are contemptible. It’s possible. I say it’s more likely that a 1990s era Jesse Helms sent money to Africa because he genuinely wanted to help people in need, whatever their color. But, I fully understand your theory.

Jeremiah Wright

? I’m trying to understand your point.

I was arguing that Sen. Helms’ forceful condemnations of homosexuality did not preclude his love for homosexuals as human beings; did not automatically equate to Sen. Helms being a bigot.

Similarly, Rev. Wright’s intellectual belief in the culpability of white people does not preclude his love for white people as human beings.

Rev. Wright actually was the impetus for my improved understanding of racism. In the early days of my understanding of TUCC and BLT and Rev. Wright: I wrote, at least two times, that Rev. Wright was racist. Later, recalling LaShawn Barber’s words: “none of us can see into another’s heart”, it occurred to me that I cannot know if Rev. Wright has racial hatred in his heart, and therefore I slandered Rev. Wright by calling him a racist. I apologize, Rev. Wright. As I further mulled Rev. Wright, I came to doubt my original opinion that he has racial hatred in his heart. I now suspect he does not.

Rev. Wright’s ideology: Black Liberation Theology, is infused with intellectually racist concepts. The intellectual reasoning is objectionable enough, in and of itself, to preclude my voting for Sen. Obama. I will not vote for a candidate who sat 20 years, up until last year, in a church which:
a) discriminates according to skin color, and
b) advocates “institutional redistribution of wealth”.

In plainer language, BLT advocates government taking radically large amounts of money from white people and giving it to black people. The radical wealth redistribution element is bad enough; the racial element is pernicious.

Sen. Helms did not advocate confiscating personal property (money) according to a citizen’s sexual preference.

A person may fiercely, intellectually disagree with Sen. Helms. That means Sen. Helms would never get that person’s vote. It does not mean Sen. Helms was either a bigot or Satan.

First of all, thank you for that opening compliment. That really made my day, even though I didn’t see it until 7:50 pm.

You do know that you can edit your comments, right?

Much of your response comes down to just plain simple disagreement. I’m not going to argue with you about your reply after each of my Helms homosexuality quotes where I said that was hatred and you said you disagreed. If you disagree, you disagree. I don’t know that we can discuss it beyond that.

However, I will respond to two of your comments. First, the one about AIDS and Africa. You said:

“Thanks for conceding Sen. Helms did something to help Africans – many or most of which were black persons. Thanks also for the how-to lesson on caveats. ”

That Helms supported programs to help AIDS sufferers in Africa is fact. It’s on the record; it’s fact. That said, you seem to be implying that because Helms supported such programs in Africa, and most Africans are black, that means he did not hate African-Americans, did not regard black people as inferior to white people, did not oppose civil rights, was not a white supremacist, etc. I simply don’t see how Helms’ supporting something that helped blacks in Africa undercuts, or somehow cancels out, the stance that he hated, feared, and opposed civil and human rights for black people in his home country. It’s not a mitigating factor. For all we know, he did it as a deliberate slap in the face to black AIDS sufferers in this country (who are mostly heterosexual, I think) and to gays and lesbians in this country. It clearly is a slap in the face whether meant that way or not.

I’m not sure what you meant about giving you a how-to lesson on caveats. I know what a caveat is, I just don’t know what you’re referring to.

“In the following Helms quotes, it’s important to understand Sen. Helms is coming from a particular subset southern Christian perspective in which
a) the Bible is interpreted as declaring homosexuality to be an abomination, and
b) every Sunday is about loving the sinner(of all types) and hating the sin(of all types).”

How do you feel about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, gcotharn?

I want to add:

This is part of the reason so many are so certain of Sen. Helms’ bigotry:
the Democratic Party used Sen. Helms as a hot button for fundraising. The Democratic Party, in order to stir emotion and motivate donors, slandered Sen. Helms for years. The Democratics were full of manure.

I do not weep for Sen. Helms. He played hardball politics himself, in instance after instance after instance. Some of what he did was distasteful and wrong. However, that I do not feel sorry for Sen. Helms does not mean the Dem Party slanders amounted to truth. They were manure.

Never have I read a more elegant and comprehensive reply with which I so disagreed! It’s an honor, and fun, and enlightening, to conduct this conversation with you. You have taught me things about Sen. Helms which I did not know.

Kathy on July 7th, 2008 1:37 pm
It is not necessary to see inside Jesse Helms’ heart to know he practiced racism. I don’t care what might have been in his heart; I care what he said and what he did and what he advocated.

Re: “what he did and what he advocated”
Some of your argument, below, re: S. America and homosexuality, equates to assertion that conservative ideas and policies are bigoted. I reject that assertion.

You say:
“People who worked in the Senate with Jesse Helms during the 80s, 90s, and 00s have said they do not believe he was bigoted.”

That’s not exactly persuasive. I’m sure you can understand why it isn’t persuasive.

My point is that what was in Sen Helms’ heart is not an open and shut case.

You say:
“He hired lots of black staffers; placing them in powerful positions.”

I’m aware of James Meredith. He joined Helms’ staff in 1989. He was a Republican, and according to Wikipedia, agreed to work for Helms because he wanted access to the Library of Congress, and after writing to every member of the House and Senate asking if he could work for them so he could gain that access, Helms was the only one to answer. That’s pretty weird, by any measure, I think, and it certainly does not serve as an indication that Helms was not a racist.

Would be “pretty weird” if Sen. Helms were a committed Christian trying to do the right thing? It would not be.

My point is the demonization of Helms because of bigotry:
a) is shallow, and
b) depends on supposition.

You say:
“He championed democracy in South America: action which helped brown and black peoples. ”

That is false. Helms championed autocracy, torture, and terror in South America. He enthusiastically supported men like Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Roberto d’Aubuisson of El Salvador. Both men were responsible for unspeakable atrocities and the disappearance and murder of thousands of people. One of Pinochet’s signature ways of disposing of Chileans was to put them on planes and drop them over the ocean. That was Helms’ idea of championing democracy.

From a Mother Jones article:
“Confronted with evidence that D’Aubuisson directed death squads to murder civilians, Helms made it clear that some things are more important than human life. ‘All I know,’ he replied, ‘is that D’Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious.’ ”

Mistakes are always made, and Sen. Helms made some big ones. However, do you think Sen. Helms’ intention was to champion “autocracy, torture, and terror”? I do not. My intent was to show a few areas in which Sen. Helms was not acting as a 1955 style racist would be acting. It’s possible Sen. Helms’ racial attitudes evolved (as many persons’ attitudes did).

You say:
“He championed AIDs prevention and treatment in Africa: action which helped black people.”

Towards the end of his political career, and *only in Africa,* where AIDS victims are heterosexual. This did not help black people in the U.S., heterosexual or homosexual, and it certainly did not help homosexual AIDS sufferers.

Thanks for conceding Sen. Helms did something to help Africans – many or most of which were black persons. Thanks also for the how-to lesson on caveats.

You say:
“In his lifetime, Jesse Helms did far more for black people than Barack Obama, for instance, has yet done. ”

That is highly debatable, to put it kindly. Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago for many years before he entered the political arena, and unquestionably accomplished a lot of things that directly helped poor, black people in as direct a fashion as possible. Another thing Obama did that directly helped black people was during the time he was Illinois state senator.

The point is: it’s debatable. In this debate, I would prefer to argue Sen. Helms’ side.

From CNN:
” While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state’s notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.

The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods.

“Without Barack’s energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place,” said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.”

The point in Helms’ favor remains: it’s debatable.

I do not dispute either CNN’s or Scott Turow’s editorial opinions. However, I also do not trust those opinions, and thus also cannot concede these points without further investigation.

This is not the place for detail, yet I feel compelled to say, in the matter of Barack’s legislative career: I see more corruption than accomplishment.

You say:
“Sen. Helms believed his policies helped people. It’s unfair to twist political disagreement into accusation of greed/racism/evil.”

Objectively, though, his policies helped only white people, and hurt black people, gays and lesbians, and victims of right-wing terror in Latin America. It’s not an issue of political disagreement. It’s an issue of fact, and of truth.

I disagree – especially with “Objectively” and “It’s an issue of fact, and of truth.”

You say,
“Homosexuality is one area where we do know exactly what Sen. Helms believed. Yet, even here, I do not find hatred in his heart. I find intellectual disagreement. Sen. Helms simply believed gay people chose to be that way. I’m confident he loved the sinner, and simply disagreed with the ’sin.’ ”

And I am confident that’s a steaming load of cow dung. It doesn’t matter whether he thought homosexuality was a choice or not, or whether it is a choice or not. It’s not like being gay or lesbian is bad, or evil, or criminal. If Helms had thought homosexuality *was* innate, and not a choice, he would still have thought it was perverted, and that view reflects a narrow-minded religious fundamentalist mindset and not the truth. Homosexuality is not a sin. The belief that it is, IS, in and of itself, indicative of bigotry and hatred — or at minimum a lifetime of miseducation.

Furthermore, Helms’ public statements about AIDS victims and about gays and lesbians in general really give the lie to your characterization of his position as an “intellectual disagreement.”

I have not studied enough to declare on either side of the issue of whether Jesus characterized homosexuality as a sin. I have sat in congregations where ministers said homosexuality is a sin. I do not concede their point without further, personal research into the matter (which I haven’t yet been interested enough to conduct, given the many interesting ballgames to be watched, but which I see coming in the my future. Sigh).

Sen. Helms was in church every Sunday. His religion instructed him to hate sin. He took his religion seriously. HE HATED SIN. He didn’t just dislike it. He hated it, as instructed. He hated all sin. His religion also instructed him that all are sinners – each and every one of us – and we love our fellow man.

This:
“He fought bitterly against federal financing for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.”

is not “intellectual disagreement.” It’s not love. It’s hatred.

I disagree with your conclusion.

This:
“1993: On the nomination of a gay rights activist to a federal post: “She’s not your garden-variety lesbian. She’s a militant-activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda. Now you think I’m going to sit still and let her be confirmed by the Senate? … If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead.””

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred.

I disagree with your conclusion.

This:
“The Bible is unmistakably instructive on the sin of sodomy,” he declared in 1994. “I confess I regard it as an abomination.” Aids, he suggested, was acquired through “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” and he became an ardent opponent of government funding for Aids research and education. In 1987 he described Aids prevention literature as “so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up.”

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred, inspired by religious fundamentalist orthodoxy.

I disagree with your conclusion.

I disagree with your conclusion.

This:
“Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches.” (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” (States News Service, 5/17/88)”

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred.

I disagree with your conclusion.

I agree that all quotes above are from Obsidian Wings! I agree! I agree! We agree! Heh.

And finally, you say:
“Some of Sen. Helms beliefs and methods were not my preferred beliefs and methods. Yet, I can see and appreciate his work. I can see and appreciate the good he did.”

I’ll bet you’re not black or homosexual, though. I think that, when it comes to someone like Jesse Helms, the fact that the vast majority of African-Americans and gays and lesbians revile Helms and believe him to be a racist bigot and a homophobe should be given some respect. I don’t think that you or I can say, with personal authority, what Jesse Helms meant to black people and gays and lesbians, not to mention other groups that he harmed. I think it’s very disrespectful, and wrong, to trivialize or deny the reality of their experience

I am at least mostly white and mostly hetero! I do not subscribe to your appeal to numbers vis a vis: “vast majority”. I disagree that I am trivializing or denying the reality of anyone’s experience.

I find nothing else to disagree with you about!

You say:

“People who worked in the Senate with Jesse Helms during the 80s, 90s, and 00s have said they do not believe he was bigoted.”

That’s not exactly persuasive. I’m sure you can understand why it isn’t persuasive.

You say:

“He hired lots of black staffers; placing them in powerful positions.”

I’m aware of James Meredith. He joined Helms’ staff in 1989. He was a Republican, and according to Wikipedia, agreed to work for Helms because he wanted access to the Library of Congress, and after writing to every member of the House and Senate asking if he could work for them so he could gain that access, Helms was the only one to answer. That’s pretty weird, by any measure, I think, and it certainly does not serve as an indication that Helms was not a racist.

You say:

“He championed democracy in South America: action which helped brown and black peoples. ”

That is false. Helms championed autocracy, torture, and terror in South America. He enthusiastically supported men like Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Roberto d’Aubuisson of El Salvador. Both men were responsible for unspeakable atrocities and the disappearance and murder of thousands of people. One of Pinochet’s signature ways of disposing of Chileans was to put them on planes and drop them over the ocean. That was Helms’ idea of championing democracy.

From a Mother Jones article:

“Confronted with evidence that D’Aubuisson directed death squads to murder civilians, Helms made it clear that some things are more important than human life. ‘All I know,’ he replied, ‘is that D’Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious.’ ”

You say:

“He championed AIDs prevention and treatment in Africa: action which helped black people.”

Towards the end of his political career, and *only in Africa,* where AIDS victims are heterosexual. This did not help black people in the U.S., heterosexual or homosexual, and it certainly did not help homosexual AIDS sufferers.

You say:

“In his lifetime, Jesse Helms did far more for black people than Barack Obama, for instance, has yet done. ”

That is highly debatable, to put it kindly. Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago for many years before he entered the political arena, and unquestionably accomplished a lot of things that directly helped poor, black people in as direct a fashion as possible. Another thing Obama did that directly helped black people was during the time he was Illinois state senator. From CNN:

” While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state’s notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.

The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods.

“Without Barack’s energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place,” said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.”

You say:

“Sen. Helms believed his policies helped people. It’s unfair to twist political disagreement into accusation of greed/racism/evil.”

Objectively, though, his policies helped only white people, and hurt black people, gays and lesbians, and victims of right-wing terror in Latin America. It’s not an issue of political disagreement. It’s an issue of fact, and of truth.

You say,

“Homosexuality is one area where we do know exactly what Sen. Helms believed. Yet, even here, I do not find hatred in his heart. I find intellectual disagreement. Sen. Helms simply believed gay people chose to be that way. I’m confident he loved the sinner, and simply disagreed with the ’sin.’ ”

And I am confident that’s a steaming load of cow dung. It doesn’t matter whether he thought homosexuality was a choice or not, or whether it is a choice or not. It’s not like being gay or lesbian is bad, or evil, or criminal. If Helms had thought homosexuality *was* innate, and not a choice, he would still have thought it was perverted, and that view reflects a narrow-minded religious fundamentalist mindset and not the truth. Homosexuality is not a sin. The belief that it is, IS, in and of itself, indicative of bigotry and hatred — or at minimum a lifetime of miseducation.

Furthermore, Helms’ public statements about AIDS victims and about gays and lesbians in general really give the lie to your characterization of his position as an “intellectual disagreement.”

This:

“He fought bitterly against federal financing for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.”

is not “intellectual disagreement.” It’s not love. It’s hatred.

This:

“1993: On the nomination of a gay rights activist to a federal post: “She’s not your garden-variety lesbian. She’s a militant-activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda. Now you think I’m going to sit still and let her be confirmed by the Senate? … If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead.””

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred.

This:

“The Bible is unmistakably instructive on the sin of sodomy,” he declared in 1994. “I confess I regard it as an abomination.” Aids, he suggested, was acquired through “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” and he became an ardent opponent of government funding for Aids research and education. In 1987 he described Aids prevention literature as “so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up.”

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred, inspired by religious fundamentalist orthodoxy.

This:

“The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct.”

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred.

This:

“Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches.” (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” (States News Service, 5/17/88)”

is not intellectual disagreement. It’s not love. It’s hatred.

(All quotes above are from Obsidian Wings.)

And finally, you say:

“Some of Sen. Helms beliefs and methods were not my preferred beliefs and methods. Yet, I can see and appreciate his work. I can see and appreciate the good he did.”

I’ll bet you’re not black or homosexual, though. I think that, when it comes to someone like Jesse Helms, the fact that the vast majority of African-Americans and gays and lesbians revile Helms and believe him to be a racist bigot and a homophobe should be given some respect. I don’t think that you or I can say, with personal authority, what Jesse Helms meant to black people and gays and lesbians, not to mention other groups that he harmed. I think it’s very disrespectful, and wrong, to trivialize or deny the reality of their experience.