Obama-wahabiism: Wright or Rong?

wsj.com

What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Paint with a broad brush much? You do if you hearken to this crap.

How is this any different than me saying all christians want to turn the US into a theocracy (something I don't believe, BTW)?

wsj.com is filled with shite.

I can't believe this has any legs. I thought the speech, as written, was a pretty accurate statement of interracial relations at present. I'm told it was not his finest oration. This guy deserves to lose because of his tired ideas and failed socialism not because of Jeremiah Wright.

Well, Joe Scarboro has been "giving it legs" on MSNBC Morning Joe this morning, for the past 2 hours plus to be exact.

This guy deserves to lose because of his tired ideas and failed socialism not because of Jeremiah Wright.

And I agree with that. And I also believe Hillary is also pushing those tired ideas and failed socialism.

And McCain is now "talking a better talk" ......... but I really don't trust him to "walk the walk".

.

TerryRC wrote:Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Paint with a broad brush much? You do if you hearken to this crap.

How is this any different than me saying all christians want to turn the US into a theocracy (something I don't believe, BTW)?

wsj.com is filled with shite.

Painting with a broad brush is the order of the day.

How is this any different fro me saying all Muslims want to wipe out our way of life and institute sharia here in the USA and the rest of the world for that matter.

bah!

Just posting a quote doesn't mean anyone is "Painting with a broad brush", ....... or even painting anything for that matter.

"Painting" only occurs when there is associated or accompanying verbiage in reference to said quote.

But now, jabbing and picking is something else.

.

How is this any different fro me saying all Muslims want to wipe out our way of life and institute sharia here in the USA and the rest of the world for that matter.

It isn't really, and I'm sure we are all guilty of it, from time to time.

Perpetuating a stereotype by quoting someone else, however, is akin to stating it yourself.

A person's shortcomings are not necessarily an indication to the worth of their cause.

RC,

Just what "worthy" cause are you thinking of? I'm afraid you've lost me again.

How is quoting someone you believe to have bad ideas (as surely Keli does not endorse Mr. Cone) akin to perpetuating them yourself?

Steph RC,

Just what "worthy" cause are you thinking of? I'm afraid you've lost me again.

Equal Rights. Support of one's candidate. I was really just making a general statement - there are loons and hatemongers in just about EVERY group.

Sheik How is quoting someone you believe to have bad ideas (as surely Keli does not endorse Mr. Cone) akin to perpetuating them yourself?

Does anyone here honestly think that Keli does not agree with the quote he posted? Really?

Regardless, this is what people like Rush Lamebaugh do - quote (or misquote) someone to perpetuate a lie or stereotype. That way, if taken to task, they can say "well, those weren't my words".

Lame and cowardly, through and through.

TerryRC wrote:

Sheik How is quoting someone you believe to have bad ideas (as surely Keli does not endorse Mr. Cone) akin to perpetuating them yourself?

Does anyone here honestly think that Keli does not agree with the quote he posted? Really?

Regardless, this is what people like Rush Lamebaugh do - quote (or misquote) someone to perpetuate a lie or stereotype. That way, if taken to task, they can say "well, those weren't my words".

Lame and cowardly, through and through.

TRC, best you go back and re-read Hagdorn's quote ....... but starting with the “Title” which he assigned to this thread. To wit:

Obama-wahabiism: Wright or Rong?

But don't be reading any further than the Title ..... until you understand the significance of the wording of said.

Me thinks you are really dense or your eyes are clouded most of the time and have to be told what to think, so here below I will give you a clue as to why TH chose the "wording" for his Title.

……. Islam requires no such perversion: it clearly calls for violence against others, especailly Jews and Christians, who oppose Islam. This view (Wahabiism is a highjacking of a peaceful religion) is not surprising:

.

Me thinks you are really dense or your eyes are clouded most of the time and have to be told what to think, so here below I will give you a clue as to why TH chose the "wording" for his Title.

I saw the wording of the title quite well.

Since Keli offered this quote with no commentary of his own, he can promote this shite and then weasel out if taken to task over it.

My question remains.

Most of us, on the rare occasions he expresses it in his own words, have seen his opinion on many issues. Do you think that he disagrees with the quote he posted?

If he did disagree with it, you and I both know he would never give said opinion any facetime on this board - not without mocking it, anyhow.

You can, in your dislike for me, pick at me all you like. It doesn't make my statements any the less true. I say that tactics such as those that Keli and Rush seem to thrive on to be cowardly and immoral, at best. I stand by that.

TerryRC wrote:Me thinks you are really dense or your eyes are clouded most of the time and have to be told what to think, so here below I will give you a clue as to why TH chose the "wording" for his Title.

I saw the wording of the title quite well.

Since Keli offered this quote with no commentary of his own, he can promote this shite and then weasel out if taken to task over it.

My question remains.

Most of us, on the rare occasions he expresses it in his own words, have seen his opinion on many issues. Do you think that he disagrees with the quote he posted?

If he did disagree with it, you and I both know he would never give said opinion any facetime on this board - not without mocking it, anyhow.

You can, in your dislike for me, pick at me all you like. It doesn't make my statements any the less true. I say that tactics such as those that Keli and Rush seem to thrive on to be cowardly and immoral, at best. I stand by that.

TerryRC,
Have you ever listened to how much you whine? Do all liberals whine? Be happy! VOTE CONSERVATIVE!

TRC, you can CYA all you want, ...... Hagdorn expressed his opinion of the quote he posted via the Title that he assigned to this thread.

The Title was his commentary.

And your refusal or inability to comprehend that fact ...... does not make any of your criticisms true or factual.

And I don't really dislike you Terry, I feel sorry for you.

You have been "conditioned" to only believe or accept certain things from certain people and thus you refuse to entertain any thoughts, ideas or comments from anyone else.

Therefore you will never be as smart or capable as those who you "look up to" and that is what makes me sad.

Never as smart or capable .... because they will never tell you everything they know ....... because if they did, ...... you would have no reason to "look up to them" anymore.



.

TRC, you can CYA all you want, ...... Hagdorn expressed his opinion of the quote he posted via the Title that he assigned to this thread.

The Title was his commentary.

O RLY?

What, then, was his opinion, as translated, Sam, since it is so obvious to all of us? It, to me is obvious that he agrees with it. I could substitute Zarr Chasm Baptist Theology for Black Theology and Wright's speech would sound amazingly similar to some things I have seen Keli post.

Keli often posts tripe like this to stir the pot and avoids any culpability by not posting his opinion with it. That way, when he is shown to be perpetuating lies or misquoting (or selectively quoting) he can wash his hands of it. Cowardly.

BTW, considering on most issues save civil liberties, I am as conservative (if not more) than you, Sam you can take your "whiny liberal" tripe, fold it until it is all sharp corners...

As to the rest of it, we know that people that disagree with you are mentally or psychologically deficient - you tell it to us all of the time...

TerryRC wrote:TRC, you can CYA all you want, ...... Hagdorn expressed his opinion of the quote he posted via the Title that he assigned to this thread.

The Title was his commentary.

O RLY?

What, then, was his opinion, as translated, Sam, since it is so obvious to all of us? It, to me is obvious that he agrees with it. I could substitute Zarr Chasm Baptist Theology for Black Theology and Wright's speech would sound amazingly similar to some things I have seen Keli post.

Keli often posts tripe like this to stir the pot and avoids any culpability by not posting his opinion with it. That way, when he is shown to be perpetuating lies or misquoting (or selectively quoting) he can wash his hands of it. Cowardly.

Well TRC, in that you garnered all of that from Hagdorn’s post, pray tell us what you garner from this, to wit:



Do you have the same opinion about that author?

Was that also just "tripe to stir the pot and avoids any culpability"? HUH, HUH?

In your opinion just another "Cowardly Act", ......... right.

ps, here is some more from where that one came from iffen you need a few more to ponder on.

Or how about this following one? Does it make any sense to you or should the author have provided his verbal opinion so you would/could understand its significance?



TRC, tell us what you think about that one.

TerryRC wrote:As to the rest of it, we know that people that disagree with you are mentally or psychologically deficient - you tell it to us all of the time...

Well TRC, is there a more PC way of describing such persons when their "disagreements" are based solely on the comments and/or opinions of other persons ........ which they themselves are incapable of explaining or defining?

Does not "deficient" imply "incapable"?

Would it not be as offensive to you if I just called you a "mimic"?

.

Do you have the same opinion about that author?

Was that also just "tripe to stir the pot and avoids any culpability"? HUH, HUH?

In your opinion just another "Cowardly Act", ......... right. Razz Razz Razz Razz

I think the democrats have made terrible choices. I'll probably be voting for that wishy-washy McCain as the least of evils.

The artist you refer to is a long way from from what keli has done - original work, obvious position, not attempting to stir up religious strife...

So are you going to give me that MOST OBVIOUS translation of keli's thread title? Not that I need it, I know how keli feels about religious groups that don't strictly adhere to his beliefs.

Ah, this is pointless. Keli mirrors his heroes Rush and Coulter. It is obvious in his tactics of "perpetuate mistruths" and "look hurt when accused of it". It is his right but we don't have to kiss his toes for doing it.

Neither the author of the quote nor Keli actually has any idea of what "black theology" is all about and one data point does not even make a trend, much less a rule.

As to being a "mimic", at least I will debate. How often do we see it out of the person you are defending?

Hi TerryRC,

This Cone fellow was inflicted upon me when I was in college studying introductory level religion. At least back then (not that long ago!) liberal "scholars" were using him as a paradigm of black liberation theology. I cannot remember which feminist liberator they brought up.

Anyway, Hill, Knitter, and Madges (I remember their names only because the book was so bad) are no West Virginia Baptists, I assure you.

I still cannot fathom why a direct quote is viewed by you as dirty pool. It may well be that Keli enjoys dropping a quote to stir up the hornet's nest, and then wandes off, but what's the harm in getting people talking? Are you saying that the Cone quote is off base, given the words (and website) of Trinity (the church of Jeremiah Wright?)

Let me repeat that as UCC churches go, I rather like Trinity. There is, however, a very real pattern of racially insensitive and inflammatory statements made both on the website and by Jeremiah Wright.


I will not vote for Obama because of his votes in favor of partial-birth abortion. I don't know yet if I'll vote for McCain; if I do, it will be because of his stand on earmarks. But people should vote for people based on their issues and their legislative records, not based on what their pastors have said. While remaining a member of Trinity for 20 years may show a lack of good judgement from Obama, or a lack of honesty when he claims that he was unaware of the rhetoric, ultimately support for him or against him should not come from statements made by someone else (a man not running for office) but from the voters evaluating his positions and responding accordingly.

I have to agree with TerryRC on one point, like him I'll be voting for McCain and I'll be holding my nose while I do it.

As far as Obama and Wright goes, you are known by the company you keep. If Obama didn't agree with Wright's teaching at least in principle, then he wouldn't be there. He is, so at some level, he must agree with Wright's teachings and views. Additionally, those that have endorsed Obama, must also at least to some degree agree with Obama's views and thus with Wright's views. Else wise, they would not be endorsing Obama.

As far as Wright goes, like Farrakan, Sharpton, Jackson, and other black leaders, they make their living on racism. As long as the black community follows these people then they are just as much slaves as their ancestors were 150 years ago. Obvious that is what they want and it is what they have.

Only when the black community rejects idiots like Obama, Wright, Farrakan, Sharpton, and Jackson along witht he socialistic left will they ever be free and be able to succeed.

Cato

Are you saying that the Cone quote is off base, given the words (and website) of Trinity (the church of Jeremiah Wright?)

Yes, I believe it is off base. Making generalizations about all black churches based upon one preacher is like me making generalizations about all baptists based on Fred Phelps.

Cone knows this and Keli knows this. It stops neither of them. As I said, it is their right but we don't have to praise them for their tactics.

I don't think Cone's "black liberation theology" is indicative of all black churches and I have no reason to believe that Keli believes that, either. It doesn't even speak for Jeremiah Wright, although Cone was clealy an influence on him.

Crap.

It seems to be my day for admitting mistakes.

When I read the quote, I thought the "black theology" generalization was from a Clinton of GOP sharpshooter.

I didn't realize who Cone was.

I still think that posting it is perpetrating sensationalistic tripe but Keli is not guilty of what I thought he was.

My mistake and I apologize.

I need to skim less and read more.

Nothing but love, TerryRC. Nothing but love. I find it more difficult to do justice to the complete thoughts on a screen than I do the printed word. I used to print out forum messages so that I could do them better justice.

It being Resurrection Sunday, forgiveness is the order of the day.

I have to say that there are a great many fascinating and difficult questions related to the whole Jeremiah Wright situation. I think that in some ways he is being unjustly condemned, but I also believe that the premises of his condemnation came first from the left. When people were clamoring for Imus' resignation I don't know if they realized that they'd be setting themselves up for similar condemnation. Al Sharpton should have been the last one to throw stones in that situation.

But as for the questions as I see them

1-Should a politician be responsible for what comes out of his pastor's mouth? I'd give a qualified no in response. People regularly go to churches even though they don't think their pastor is 100% right.
2-Under what conditions does speech qualify as "hate speech," and is it really a problem like we say it is? I have long thought that condemnation of racist/sexist/whatever speech, while justified, was nonetheless overstated. Stupid people saying stupid things is not, in my opinion, as disastrous as believed. What Wright said was stupid, but do we not have free speech in this country? Let Wright and Farrakhan say what they will, and then let Duke and Metzger say what they will.
3-Have we unjustly created a different set of standards for blacks and whites when they speak?

Good post, Michael.

Least we forget that Obama is married and a politician.

And those are two primary reasons for "attending church" ...... and specifically "attending a specific church".

And neither of those two reasons have anything to do with the Minister or the sermons he/she preaches.

cheers

.

1-Should a politician be responsible for what comes out of his pastor's mouth? I'd give a qualified no in response. People regularly go to churches even though they don't think their pastor is 100% right.

No. Half the time I'm not sure that pastors even know what is coming out of their own mouths, not that that makes them any the less responsible for their words.

2-Under what conditions does speech qualify as "hate speech," and is it really a problem like we say it is? I have long thought that condemnation of racist/sexist/whatever speech, while justified, was nonetheless overstated. Stupid people saying stupid things is not, in my opinion, as disastrous as believed. What Wright said was stupid, but do we not have free speech in this country? Let Wright and Farrakhan say what they will, and then let Duke and Metzger say what they will.

No speech should be considered "hate speech" in terms of the law. That doesn't mean that we, as individuals, shouldn't turn our backs on those that spout ignorant nonsense.

3-Have we unjustly created a different set of standards for blacks and whites when they speak?

In general, yes. In churches, not really. I have heard white preachers say equally distateful things.