Grifman wrote:Your insinuation is totally unfair and not based upon any evidence.
No "possibly" about it. You have no evidence, zilch, nada, none whatsoever. All you have is suppositions on your part. You can't point to anything the pastor said of a racial nature.
All I know is that once you start asking people to clarify their opinions, they seem to get oddly specific about these things.
Sure, but you can point to no such specificity in the article.
In this situation it's not the amount of money helping people that's the problem, it's how the money is being spent on people.
None of which has anything with deciding that there is a racial issue involved.
Some of it should go away, seemingly "hand outs", suggesting he believes that people that are able to work should - and that perhaps his state should be deciding who gets the money based on their local evaluation of work fitness?
And there's nothing racial there either. The pastor works in a mountain community which I suspect is largely white. His opinions are largely informed by what he sees in his largely white community. If he's calling for changes because of abuses he sees, it's abuses of a largely white community.
When we live in a country that has certain states systematically crafting laws against bathroom use, marriages and voting rights you'll forgive me if I don't believe that old white men in Kentucky will be looking out for the minority populations in their state currently receiving some type of financial benefit through a safety net program.
You can believe what you want. But we're not talking about what you believe. We're talking about whether there is any evidence, any reasonable warrant for belief in a racial animus in anything the pastor said, not what state legislatures may or may not do. So far, you've provided no such evidence. Right now, IMO, you're a perfect example of a mirror image of so many conservatives that I come across - believing what you want regardless of whether the facts support you or not. Right now I don't see much difference.