[quote]Mick28 wrote:
If it has anything to do with African Americans you guys support it- RIGHT OR WRONG.
[/quote]
the only thing you just wrote that is worth responding to…the rest was just baby babble: the answer is WRONG…try to prove other wise.
As for the rest,I made my case…nothing else to say about it.
[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
dk44 wrote:
I doubt Jesus would have liked God’s name to be taken in vain.
are you talking God damn America ? God is not a name
True, plus, I doubt Jesus would have ignored our own society’s excesses and focused in on someone’s use of the name of God in a sentence like that. I think the current general public would be the only ones that shallow.
Hey Professor Post, we’ve found another topic that you don’t know anything about, religion:
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
Exodus 20:7
It’s also a commandment in case you didn’t know.
Forget his hateful racist remarks, tell us all how it’s okay for an ordained minister to preach in front of his congregation and take the Lords name in vain.
Go ahead Post we’re all waiting…
Since you’re the religion expert now and quoting Bible verses…why don’t you practice the values it teaches. Words are not the only form of “taking God’s name in vain.”
I doubt if Jesus came back today and walked around downtown New York that worrying about people saying, “Gawd damn” would even be anywhere near the top of the list of points to cover. I also don’t see Jesus getting up and leaving a church sermon because of it as Jesus was always able to see the larger picture.
He was also a politician of sorts and was apparently highly intelligent compared to the general population.
If anything, he would use that instance to bring unity, not to show seperatism from those in Church because one man in a pulpit said a “bad word” while ignoring the context of the message.
Jesus would likely see Obama’s pastor’s comments as divisive and an offense to the house of God. As such, he may have whipped his ass!
"14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
John 2:14-16 (New International Version)
Yup, Jesus was all about pre-emptive war and kicking the asses of those opposing it.
You cannot, possibly, be serious.[/quote]
Yes sparky, I’m joking.
However, Jesus is not the pacifist many believe him to be. For example:
“35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.”
Luke 22:35-38 (New International Version)
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
If it has anything to do with African Americans you guys support it- RIGHT OR WRONG.
the only thing you just wrote that is worth responding to…the rest was just baby babble: the answer is WRONG…try to prove other wise.
As for the rest,I made my case…nothing else to say about it.
The above is a good example.
Why don’t you prove how I attacked Professor Posts faith?
Why don’t you back up your assertion that I did not comment on Wright?
Why don’t you comment on how my original post is wrong?
You have nothing else to say because you’re WRONG on every one of your assertions.
Again…you fall very short of being someone who can debate this topic. One more post by you and one more time you make an ass of yourself.
[/quote]
All this religious babble coming from someone who is laying judgement to another’s character based on half truths and perception of actions.
This is for your “mature discussion” and I’m done:
John 3:17 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
Matthew 7:1-5 �??Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, �??Let me take the speck out of your eye,�?? when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Matthew 7:1-5 �??Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, �??Let me take the speck out of your eye,�?? when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."[/quote]
I trust it is not lost on you that this very passage you cited demonstrates the problem with Wright’s approach?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Matthew 7:1-5 �??Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, �??Let me take the speck out of your eye,�?? when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
I trust it is not lost on you that this very passage you cited demonstrates the problem with Wright’s approach?
[/quote]
He wasn’t discussing Wright’s sermon. He was discussing what Jesus would do if listening to Wright’s sermon.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
If it has anything to do with African Americans you guys support it- RIGHT OR WRONG.
the only thing you just wrote that is worth responding to…the rest was just baby babble: the answer is WRONG…try to prove other wise.
As for the rest,I made my case…nothing else to say about it.
The above is a good example.
Why don’t you prove how I attacked Professor Posts faith?
Why don’t you back up your assertion that I did not comment on Wright?
Why don’t you comment on how my original post is wrong?
You have nothing else to say because you’re WRONG on every one of your assertions.
Again…you fall very short of being someone who can debate this topic. One more post by you and one more time you make an ass of yourself.
All this religious babble coming from someone who is laying judgement to another’s character based on half truths and perception of actions.
This is for your “mature discussion” and I’m done:
John 3:17 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
Matthew 7:1-5 �??Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, �??Let me take the speck out of your eye,�?? when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."[/quote]
If my brother was too stupid to take the speck out of his own eye, then he deserves to suffer. And if he didn’t even try to get the speck out, and swore at others because they wouldn’t get the speck out for him (the lazy prick), then I say 'Fuck ‘im!’
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Matthew 7:1-5 �??Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, �??Let me take the speck out of your eye,�?? when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
I trust it is not lost on you that this very passage you cited demonstrates the problem with Wright’s approach?
He wasn’t discussing Wright’s sermon. He was discussing what Jesus would do if listening to Wright’s sermon.
[/quote]
Amen.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Amen.[/quote]
I left my question above - I wasn’t interested in whether you were using it to address whether Jesus would tolerate Wright’s sermons (likely not, since he was, well, defying a Commandment, but I am not interested in that argument directly).
I wanted to suggest that Wright’s comments - as a man of the cloth - can’t be “contextualized” when they stand in stark defiance of the very religion he is purporting to represent.
And, there is no reason to think that a charlatan preacher spreading the poisonous reverse of the faith in his sermons would have the blessing of the Prophet who was willing to die for the exact opposite message.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, there is no reason to think that a charlatan preacher spreading the poisonous reverse of the faith in his sermons would have the blessing of the Prophet who was willing to die for the exact opposite message.[/quote]
Please explain how he is specifically preaching the reverse of the message that Jesus was teaching. Do you think that Jesus would be in support of this country or do you think that Jesus would be saddened by the fact that we are at war currently? What do you think Jesus thought of Rome? Do you think Jesus would be able to see far beyond our current disputes?
It is clear that “God DAMN America” is a request/statement given the context of the message since it opposed, “God BLESS America” which is also a request/statement. The use of the profane “goddamn” wasn’t even the intention here meaning it is also in question whether this is even taking the Lord’s name in vain the way it is traditionally considered. This was obviously not intended to be a four letter word but a mirror of “God BLESS America”. This should be painfully evident. It is strange that many of you refuse to see that statement in context and also that you think the son of God couldn’t understand the context and think beyond it. Would Jesus use that instance to bring unity, or would he use that instance to reprimand someone for taking the name of God in vain even though that was not the intended message?
Jesus was never petty. His actions all had profound meaning and intent, even when he ran the thieves out of the Church. Why major in the minors? Which message is more important?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Please explain how he is specifically preaching the reverse of the message that Jesus was teaching. Do you think that Jesus would be in support of this country or do you think that Jesus would be saddened by the fact that we are at war currently? What do you think Jesus thought of Rome? Do you think Jesus would be able to see far beyond our current disputes?
It is clear that “God DAMN America” is a request/statement given the context of the message since it opposed, “God BLESS America” which is also a request/statement. The use of the profane “goddamn” wasn’t even the intention here meaning it is also in question whether this is even taking the Lord’s name in vain the way it is traditionally considered. This was obviously not intended to be a four letter word but a mirror of “God BLESS America”. This should be painfully evident. It is strange that many of you refuse to see that statement in context and also that you think the son of God couldn’t understand the context and think beyond it. Would Jesus use that instance to bring unity, or would he use that instance to reprimand someone for taking the name of God in vain even though that was not the intended message?
Jesus was never petty. His actions all had profound meaning and intent, even when he ran the thieves out of the Church. Why major in the minors? Which message is more important? [/quote]
There is little in Wright’s message - rewarmed Marxist black liberation theology - that helps spread the message of unity under one set of spiritual ideas. Wright advances racist crackpot conspiracy theories and sows the seeds of division between races. He does little but preach politics from the pulpit, which eclipses any spiritual teaching.
And this feckless notion that Wright’s statements can be “contextualized” is horseshit - everyone gets his play on words (bless/damn), that isn’t the point. The point is that outside of his - by a preacher’s standards - blasphemous rantings, his message is not about “turning the other cheek”. It is about anger, hatred, and revenge.
Wright doesn’t bring anyone together under the tent of the church - he does the opposite. His black liberation theory doesn’t allow it.
We can only speculate as to what Jesus would do - but you seem insistent on Jesus’ desire to see unity. No problem - nothing in Wright’s radicalism is inspired to seek unity.
Wright is an angry, misplaced fraud. In a world where we should noting our accomplishments in getting past our divisions and feeling optimistic about what we have been able to do in order to take an extra step, Wright wants to reinforce the divisions, spew hate, and keep anger in the front of people’s minds. It’s not unusual - people looooooooove to be victims - it gets them attention.
He is no healer. He wallows in victimization because of the attention it brings - and the money, too, witness his 10,000 square foot retirement pad.
Race hustling is good work if you can get it - but it is likely nothing Jesus was interested in having be part of his mission. Wright exploits Christianity for his own selfish ends - his politics and his livelihood. I suspect that Jesus would be none too pleased with using Christianity for such selfish, earthly pursuits.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is little in Wright’s message - rewarmed Marxist black liberation theology - that helps spread the message of unity under one set of spiritual ideas. Wright advances racist crackpot conspiracy theories and sows the seeds of division between races. [/quote]
I knew you were going to do that…you know, discuss “black liberation theology” as if that is specifically what is being preached to the congregation every Sunday. We have heard very little direct quotes from the man that are preaching all of the hate and separatism that many of you claim is going on during every church service. I am really wondering how you can argue what is being preached other than that which we have direct proof of.
I have asked for direct quotes of all of this for weeks and have received very little. I am willing to discuss what we have proof of, not what you would like to THINK is going on. So far, “God Damn America” and discussion about the HIV virus is about the worst of it. Both of these issues have been discussed in so much detail that rehashing them isn’t even necessary. It is simply a fact that this country has caused much of the distrust aimed towards it whether the specific details of what is mistrusted are scientifically sound or not.
[quote]
He does little but preach politics from the pulpit, which eclipses any spiritual teaching.[/quote]
Again you come to this conclusion based on 3min of youtube video footage.
[quote]
And this feckless notion that Wright’s statements can be “contextualized” is horseshit - everyone gets his play on words (bless/damn), that isn’t the point. [/quote]
It isn’t? Many have argued that he is taking the Lord’s name in vain. Sure, you may take the position that you personally have not made that correlation, but you HAVE jumped to conclusions about what is actually being preached every Sunday based on very little evidence other than the basic premise of Black Liberation Theology. Why do we get so little when we ask for evidence?
[quote]
The point is that outside of his - by a preacher’s standards - blasphemous rantings, his message is not about “turning the other cheek”. It is about anger, hatred, and revenge.[/quote]
Jesus wasn’t a wimp and his message wasn’t to simply continue turning cheeks. We only have two. There was also that “eye for an eye” passage.
[quote]
We can only speculate as to what Jesus would do - but you seem insistent on Jesus’ desire to see unity. No problem - nothing in Wright’s radicalism is inspired to seek unity.
Wright is an angry, misplaced fraud. In a world where we should noting our accomplishments in getting past our divisions and feeling optimistic about what we have been able to do in order to take an extra step, Wright wants to reinforce the divisions, spew hate, and keep anger in the front of people’s minds. It’s not unusual - people looooooooove to be victims - it gets them attention.
He is no healer. He wallows in victimization because of the attention it brings - and the money, too, witness his 10,000 square foot retirement pad.
Race hustling is good work if you can get it - but it is likely nothing Jesus was interested in having be part of his mission. Wright exploits Christianity for his own selfish ends - his politics and his livelihood. I suspect that Jesus would be none too pleased with using Christianity for such selfish, earthly pursuits.[/quote]
I would suspect that Jesus would be less likely to simply condemn the man than you seem to believe…I am also more than sure that he would see rushes to judgement based on limited evidence to be just as negative if not moreso.
I personally think politics and the church should be far removed from each other. However, that doesn’t erase the many churches in the South that actively tried to get Bush more votes last time around. You only heard crickets then.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And, there is no reason to think that a charlatan preacher spreading the poisonous reverse of the faith in his sermons would have the blessing of the Prophet who was willing to die for the exact opposite message.
Please explain how he is specifically preaching the reverse of the message that Jesus was teaching. Do you think that Jesus would be in support of this country or do you think that Jesus would be saddened by the fact that we are at war currently? What do you think Jesus thought of Rome? Do you think Jesus would be able to see far beyond our current disputes?
It is clear that “God DAMN America” is a request/statement given the context of the message since it opposed, “God BLESS America” which is also a request/statement. The use of the profane “goddamn” wasn’t even the intention here meaning it is also in question whether this is even taking the Lord’s name in vain the way it is traditionally considered. This was obviously not intended to be a four letter word but a mirror of “God BLESS America”. This should be painfully evident. It is strange that many of you refuse to see that statement in context and also that you think the son of God couldn’t understand the context and think beyond it. Would Jesus use that instance to bring unity, or would he use that instance to reprimand someone for taking the name of God in vain even though that was not the intended message?
Jesus was never petty. His actions all had profound meaning and intent, even when he ran the thieves out of the Church. Why major in the minors? Which message is more important? [/quote]
I agree that Jesus wound not have focused on his words, we would have focused on the hate in his heart.
Lanny Davis, in today’s WSJ:
[i]Obama’s Minister Problem
By LANNY J. DAVIS
April 9, 2008; Page A15
I have tried to get over my unease surrounding Barack Obama’s response to the sermons and writings of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the unanswered questions remain.
I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself). I still believe she should and will be the Democratic nominee. But if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, he needs to understand that this issue goes well beyond Clinton partisans. Now is the time to address these questions, not later.
Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn’t he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?
My concerns were retriggered when I read for the first time three excerpts from Rev. Wright’s sermons published several weeks ago in a national news magazine:
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
– Sept. 16, 2001 (the first Sunday after 9/11)
“The government . . . wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no. God damn America; that’s in the bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”
– 2003
“The United States of White America.”
– July 22, 2007
As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.
In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.
But this comparison just doesn’t work for me. I don’t get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.
Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn’t he act before the resignation?
If he did not want to withdraw from the church �?? and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so �?? then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: “No �?? this is unacceptable.”
Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?
Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are “playing the race card” or taking the “low” road.
When I said on CNN recently that concerns about the Wright-Obama issue were “appropriate” to continue to be discussed, my friend Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, “Lanny, Lanny, you’re spreading the poison right now” and that an “honorable person” would “stay away from this stuff.”
Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama’s response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright’s comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters �?? soft “Reagan Democrats,” independents and moderate Republicans �?? who will decide the 2008 election.
One thing is for sure: If Mr. Obama doesn’t show a willingness to try to answer all the questions now, John McCain and the Republican attack machine will not waste a minute pressuring him to do so if he is the Democratic Party’s choice in the fall.
But by then, it may be too late.
Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C. attorney, is former special counsel to President Clinton.[/i]
This will be my last post in this thread, as the sport is gone on the topic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I knew you were going to do that…you know, discuss “black liberation theology” as if that is specifically what is being preached to the congregation every Sunday. We have heard very little direct quotes from the man that are preaching all of the hate and separatism that many of you claim is going on during every church service. I am really wondering how you can argue what is being preached other than that which we have direct proof of.[/quote]
Well, if you predicted I would reference Black Liberation Theology, you’d be right - Black Liberation Theology is the horse that pulls the the cart of Wright’s church.
Don’t take my word for it, take Reverend Wright’s:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone�??s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
I can’t know what Wright says every Sunday any more than you can, but we all know - those of us that bother educating ourselves - exactly what Wright’s point is every Sunday morning: to advance his theology. He says so himself.
Ridiculous. Off the top of my head, I can throw these out (paraphrased):
“We bombed Hiroshima/Nagasaki…we nuked far more than the body count on 9/11”
“America supports state terrorism against Palestinians and South Africans…chickens have come home to roost”
“God damn America…”
9/11 was a wake up call that colored people aren’t going away and the Great White West will have to consider black concerns
Bill Clinton was “riding dirty” when he screwed over the black community
Israel is illegally occupying Palestine and the US and Israel is advancing racism and injustice
Jesus was black and got a lynching by “garlic nose” Italians
I gathered these from reading the news and these threads. Far from getting “very little”, if you choose not to read, that is not my problem to fix, but there is plenty of information out there to learn exactly what kind of sermons Wright delivers up.
This is quite telling - even if the mistrust is irrational and unjustified (i.e., it doesn’t make sense, is not “scientifically sound”), too bad, we’re mad, dammit.
Asking people to make sense gets in the way of the path to ultimate victimhood. So inconvenient.
Nope - I gather my information from reading widely on the subject. There has been no shortage of op-eds about it. In fact, I have never even seen the YouTube clip.
But interesting that you seem to know how I come to my conclusions - all the while not even yourself bothering to go read up on the issue.
See above - Wright is quite clear what you are in for if you attended his church (he is since retired). His entire spiritual message is Black Liberation Theology. Again, don’t believe me, believe Reverend Wright who had this exchange with Sean Hannity:
[i]WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes.
HANNITY: All right, but we’re not dealing with �?? this is on the Web site today. Let me just inform our audience, and I want you to respond, if you can.
It says, “Commitment to God.” By the way, I’m with you, and I hope you’ll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.
Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn’t we call that church racist?
WRIGHT: No, we would call it Christianity. We’ve been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we’ve been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we’ve been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.
We don’t have to say the word “white.” We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America. That’s not the issue; you’re missing the issue.
As I was trying to say to you, liberation theology �?? and I thought Eric Rush has studied at a theological seminary that was conservative �?? I’ve come to find out he doesn’t know anything more about theology than I know about brain surgery.
HANNITY: So here’s my point to you, though.
WRIGHT: No, let me finish. No, here’s my point to you.
HANNITY: I’m waiting.
WRIGHT: If you’re not going to talk about theology in context, if you’re not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the �??60s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian theologians, and Hispanic theologians…
HANNITY: Reverend, I’ve got to get this in.
WRIGHT: Then you can talk about the black value system.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: I’m going to tell you this. Listen…
WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir? Do you know liberation theology?
HANNITY: I studied theology; I went to a seminary. And I studied Latin.
WRIGHT: Do you know black liberation theology?
HANNITY: I’m very aware of what you’re calling black liberation, but let me get my question out.
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?
HANNITY: Reverend, I’m going to give you a chance to answer my question.
WRIGHT: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?
HANNITY: Reverend, Reverend?
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: How many books of Cone’s have you head?
HANNITY: I’m going to ask you this question…
WRIGHT: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
HANNITY: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: You haven’t answered �?? you haven’t answered my question.
HANNITY: And it seems to be, when you say the black community, black family, black work ethic, black community…
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: It seems arrogant, ignorant…
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: I’m asking you…
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: … how many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
HANNITY: Sir, I’m going to say this whether you like it or not. I’m going to get my words in, and I’m going to tell you right now…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: As a Christian, sir, I think, as a Christian, you should not separate by race in this day and age. And that’s why a lot of people are going to look at that and say, “We’re all supposed to be united under Christ, aren’t we?”
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Dr. Wright, it’s Alan Colmes. First of all, I think Barack Obama put it correctly to the “Chicago Tribune” when he said that he’d be puzzled that the conservatives would object or quibble with the bulk of a document �?? which is your church’s document �?? that espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help. That’s what you’re talking about on your Web site, self-reliance and self-help for the committee that your church serves. I don’t see what the problem should be with that.
WRIGHT: That comes out of the perspective of liberation theology and black liberation theology. And I keep asking him, how many books of Cone’s has he read? How many books of Dwight Hopkins? How many liberation theologians does he know?
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: But I want to ask you about your church that the public understands. I want the public to understand where your church is coming from, because you’re being accused of being a black separatist church, and thus Obama is being accused by default of being a black separatist. Can you straighten that out for us, please?
WRIGHT: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.
It comes from the principles of Kawaida, the second principle being Kuji Salawi (ph), which is self-determination, us naming ourselves, and not saying we are superior to anybody. We have no hierarchical arrangement.
When you say an African-centered way of thinking, African-centered philosophy, African-centered theology, you’re talking about one center. We’re talking about something that’s different. And different does not mean deficient…
COLMES: Aren’t there black churches…
WRIGHT: … nor does it mean superior or inferior. The whole notion of hierarchal, one’s superior, we must be separate because we’re better, that has absolutely nothing to do with…
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: But aren’t there black churches all over America that say pretty much what your church says? They serve the African-American community. They say very similar things to what you say on your Web site.
WRIGHT: Yes, they do. Yes, they do.
COLMES: And your church is being singled out, simply because it has congregants, like Barack Obama, but it also has people from all walks of life, welfare recipients, Oprah Winfrey, as I understand it, and a whole bunch of people?
WRIGHT: Correct. That’s correct. We’ve been singled out ever since the audacity of hope speech, ever since the Democratic convention, ever since the book “Audacity of Hope,” ever since journalists found out that Barack was one of our members. Yes, we’ve been singled out.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: I’ve got to run. We’re on a hard break. But may I suggest that we talk about the American community, instead of black, the American family, instead of black…
WRIGHT: Let me suggest that you do some reading before you come and talk to me about my field. I’m not trying to talk to you about �?? no, no, no.
HANNITY: … that would bring us together.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: … Martin Luther King…
WRIGHT: Martin Luther King was from the black church. He was not from the white church. He was not from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Christian conservative…
HANNITY: He said, “I judge people by the content of their character.”
WRIGHT: Yes, and he also said that war is wrong.
HANNITY: I’ve got to run.
WRIGHT: He also said that the president lied to take us into Vietnam.
HANNITY: I’ve got to run. Thank you for being with us.
WRIGHT: Why don’t you quote everything? Thank you for having me, sir.
HANNITY: And when we come back, we’ll bring you the results of the Spartanburg, South Carolina, Republican straw poll. We’ll bring you that next, straight ahead.
WRIGHT: God bless you, and God bless you.[/i]
For someone only passively interested in Black Liberation Theology - as you suggest - Wright is awfully aggressive about defending it as the theology that drives his ministry.
And, it’s worth noting - Boston has posted this exchange before.
Nope. There was also that “Sermon on the Mount” passage.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus addressed exactly what you are suggesting - specifically addressing the “eye for an eye” tenet of the Old Testament - and repudiated it straightaway:
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
There is no need to rush to judgment on Wright - he has spent years cultivating his image as angry pulpit radical. He isn’t “misunderstood” or “complex” - he is a 60s holdover that subscribes to divisive politics and he exploits Christianity to spread his nonsense. Judgment is easy.
A red herring, but predictable. What happened in Southern churches w/r/t Bush has no bearing on Wright, but if you are that upset about it, start a thread. Wright’s actions aren’t excused because someone else injects politics into sermons.