Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is a New York Times story about race. Key paragraph:

It is difficult to gauge the extent to which the vitriol that has come Mr. Obama’s way is racially motivated and the extent to which it is simply akin to that directed at his white predecessors.

Exactly. So either the critics of President Obama are given the benefit of the doubt or they are given the detriment of the doubt. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Why not assume, in other words, that opposition to President Obama is not motivated by racism? Do you expect to be given the benefit of the doubt? I assume so. Then why would you not give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom you disagree? If you wouldn't like your motives questioned, then you shouldn't question other people's motives.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with that judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you" (Matthew 7: 1-2 [italics in original]).