Zionism is a complicated topic, with religious, nationalist and cultural zionism being distinct issues in the cultural history of the movement. I think it's fair to say any state that identifies itself as exclusivly a state for one race of people is, by definition, racist -- especially given democraphic realities in Israel. Fortunately, defining Israel as an exclusively "Jewish state" is not a consensus within the country.

In any case, equating Zionism with racism is at worst abhorent and at best horrifically uninformed.

And Obama's preacher's thinking is certainly quite damaging -- on par with the Mormon Church's and Huckabee's brand of theocratic Christianity. Like Romney, though, I think Obama will get a "free pass" and be allowed to define his beliefs for himself, instead of having his church's doctrines pinned on him.

I disagree.

While a discussion of "Zionism" from a historical perspective is indeed complex, this was not what Reverend Wright does when he uses the term.

Neither is a comparison with the religious beliefs of either Romney or Huckabee valid. They are both members of religious groups with long histories. If you go back far enough in any religious group, you can find some objectionable practices or beliefs - but such historical analysis bears no practical resemblance to the religions to which those men adhere. And neither is personally linked to any radical cleric.

Obama has, in the past, described Rev. Wright as a personal spiritual mentor and adviser. Wright's controversial preaching is hardly limited to the above quotes (the linked blog provides several linked articles relating to its history, including honoring Farrakhan).

Should Obama become the nominee, the radical beliefs of the church he chose to join and remain a member of will be heard, and it will not be to Obama's benefit.

Jewish isn't a race. Just ask all the Ethiopian Jews.

I'm not generally in favor of religious tests, but.....
Israel was a response to something ugly. For most of their history they have been reviled wherever they go as being "different" and of course, because they're generally more succesful than the average inhabitant of most countries. For over a thousand years they were "allowed" to live places, until some prince or king needed a convnenient scapegoat and, well, tag, Jew're it.
The Holocaust was merely the latest and most efficient pogrom against Jews, but they've been attacked where ever they've lived.
"Never Again" has little to do with their religion and lots to do with their desire to stay alive.

Barack Obama is not Muslim, but Muslims think he once was.

Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim based on his paternal ancestry from a Muslim family in Kenya, his living in Indonesia (a Muslim nation) with a Muslim stepfather and attending a public school that gave religious instruction (as they all do in Muslim nations). While his mother did not practice any organized religion, his maternal grandparents were Muslim.

Anyone with this background is considered Muslim under Islamic jurisprudence. Obama converted to Christianity as an adult and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. BO is not now Muslim, so why should we care? Well, as president, BO would have to deal with Muslim nations where he will be seen as an "apostate"; a crime punishable by death according to all five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Should Americans be concerned about how BO would be viewed in the Muslim world? Only if you hope for peace and a continued supply of oil.

Just to keep one step ahead of our commenters, I must note that bringing up Monica ten years later really sucks . . .
Nah! It blows!