[BABRAM]

Well personally I really dont want Obama to be the president. I hear all these things that he is saying and I get worried. Who hear thinks that he will win?

Fair enough. I'm more worried about where the last seven and half years has led us. I actually like the fact that after the Republicans took him to task the Rev Wright issue. It gave Obama the opportunity to speak on racism in the US openly, more so than any Republican candidate or Republican President in the past century. Economically I think Ron Paul would be the best choice. However he's no longer in the campaign, so if Obama can get past the Clinton's campaign shenanigans, or from being railroaded by the DNC, he has an excellent chance of being elected President.

[BABRAM]

well tell me Bobby ....was he just doing what a politician does today when he flip flopped on the Right rev ? or when was he telling the truth ? When he said that he had not heard the controverial things the rev said ;or when he said he could no longer disassociate himself from the rev than he could from the black race ? or today when for political expediency he ripped the rev a new one ?

The whole point is that his early claim to the campaign ;that he was somehow above the fray has been totally exposed as a fiction in the last month.

Now that we know that he is not this transformational superman ;but instead just another Dem with positions not much different than his other Dem opponent ;the final issue for the Dem campaign is electability .

The point is that you didn't recognize that he originally disassociated himself from some of what Rev Wright remarks suggested, which was mostly soundbites out of context. But rather you believed as the Republicans wanted you to think that he was the alter boy at every service. Nobody on the Democratic front suggested that Obama is superman. That's mostly Republicans thinking out loud in jealous fear. The DNC message has been that either of their candidates, Obama or Clinton, are in the drivers seat against McCain. When is McCain going go on National TV and give a speech on why he's disassociating from Hagee because of his ideology concerning Jews and Catholics? I'm still waiting.

[speechlesstx]

The problem is that you didn't recognize that he originally disassociated himself from some of what Rev Wright remarks suggested, which was mostly soundbites out of context. But rather you believed as the Republicans wanted you to think that he was the alter boy at every service.

I don't think that's a fair assessment, Bobby. What we have asked is how can Obama sit in a church for 20 years and claim not to have heard Wright's rants? How can he can be a member and supporter of a church and pastor for 20 years and now not only says Wright's views don't reflect what he believes, but are offensive to many Americans? It's grievously inconsistent.

Also, Obama knew Wright would be a problem for him, Wright admitted as much to the NY Times prior to this eruption. Hannity interviewed Wright in March of last year, why didn't Obama dissociate himself then?

Nobody on the Democratic front suggested that Obama is superman. That's mostly Republicans thinking out loud in jealous fear. The DNC message has been that either of their candidates, Obama or Clinton, are in the drivers seat against McCain. When is McCain going go on National TV and give a speech on why he's disassociating from Hagee because of his ideology concerning Jews and Catholics? I'm still waiting.

LOL, it ain't jealous fear, it's the media's coronation and coverage. All afternoon I've heard ABC Radio News correspondents elated that Obama has distanced himself from Wright - and it wasn't Republican jealous fear that sent a thrill up Christ Matthew's leg or referred to him as "the magic Negro."

[BABRAM]

I don't think that's a fair assessment, Bobby. What we have asked is how can Obama sit in a church for 20 years and claim not to have heard Wright's rants? How can he can be a member and supporter of a church and pastor for 20 years and now not only says Wright's views don't reflect what he believes, but are offensive to many Americans? It's grievously inconsistent.

Also, Obama knew Wright would be a problem for him, Wright admitted as much to the NY Times prior to this eruption. Hannity interviewed Wright in March of last year, why didn't Obama dissociate himself then?

It's very fair. Obama being on the membership role is not the same as being at every service for twenty years. I haven't forgotten it was the Republicans that blasted Obama because he agreed with Wright's teaching on "Black" theology. A theology which stood for human rights and led to civil rights. He said from the beginning that he doesn't agree with Wrights on other things, especially his lack of tact. Now that Wright refuses to be constructive in his messages, Obama on a personal level has chosen to disassociated from the pastor. Which BTW since he hasn't been around him in awhile means that Obama simply has his name removed from church membership records or continues not to show up. Wright has never been part of the Obama advisory staff. Republicans will continue to resort to negative campaigning, but only heaven knows what they'll have left to talk about around the water cooler now.

LOL, it ain't jealous fear, it's the media's coronation and coverage. All afternoon I've heard ABC Radio News correspondents elated that Obama has distanced himself from Wright - and it wasn't Republican jealous fear that sent a thrill up Christ Matthew's leg or referred to him as "the magic Negro."

He's the first African-American candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House and that scares the hell out of many Republicans. By the way ABC's been under Hillary Clinton's skirt for months now and FOX for the most part has been sharing McCain's wheelchair.

[speechlesstx]

It's very fair. Obama being on the membership role is not the same as being at every service for twenty years.

Bobby, surely you remember that Wright was his 'mentor.' That suggests much more than occasional attendance.

I haven't forgotten it was the Republicans that blasted Obama because he agreed with Wright's teaching on "Black" theology. A theology which stood for human rights and led to civil rights. He said from the beginning that he doesn't agree with Wrights on other things, especially his lack of tact. Now that Wright refuses to be constructive in his messages, Obama on a personal level has chosen to disassociated from the pastor.

Anyone that criticizes Obama for agreeing with "black theology" in the Christian church is correct in doing so. There is no "black theology" in the Christian church any more than there is a "white theology." The idea is simply absurd.

Which BTW since he hasn't been around him in awhile means that Obama simply has his name removed from church membership records or continues not to show up. Wright has never been part of the Obama advisory staff. Republicans will continue to resort to negative campaigning, but only heaven knows what they'll have left to talk about around the water cooler now.

Bobby, Wright was indeed on Obama's "African American Religious Leadership Committee." But hey, Wright is giving us all he can to discuss around the water cooler now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus. :D

He's the first African-American candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House and that scares the hell out of many Republicans. By the way ABC's been under Hillary Clinton's skirt for months now and FOX for the most part has been sharing McCain's wheelchair.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and we've testified to the opposite many times. I'm all for a black president, just not the ones the Dems have offered up so far. I don't have any guilt over slavery to deal with, I don't need my conscience soothed, so I don't fall into that trap - and that just pi$$es some people off. ;)

[BABRAM]

Bobby, surely you remember that Wright was his 'mentor.' That suggests much more than occasional attendance.

Obama said Wright is not the same person today that he met twenty years ago. Surely you didn't think they were attached at the hip. I have rabbis that I consider as mentors that I haven't seen awhile. They may have changed. I don't always attend the same shul and often I complete shabbos at home.

Anyone that criticizes Obama for agreeing with "black theology" in the Christian church is correct in doing so. There is no "black theology" in the Christian church any more than there is a "white theology." The idea is simply absurd.

Steve, you've got to be kidding me. It's hard for me to believe you don't know where Black theology started. Generations back when slavery was pressed upon the Blacks they questioned their White proclaimed "Christian" owners as to why they were treated differently in society. Often the only place they had to speak on this issue was at their segregated Church services and out of that grew human right and civil right issues in he 1960's and even now. Wow!

Bobby, Wright was indeed on Obama's "African American Religious Leadership Committee." But hey, Wright is giving us all he can to discuss around the water cooler now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus. :D

Past tense "was" and that's been awhile back since being named to any committee. You have it wrong again. Wright threw Obama under the bus. The retired Wright seemed to had thought that he was running for presidency. The only fault I have with Obama is that he didn't put Wright in his place sooner.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and we've testified to the opposite many times. I'm all for a black president, just not the ones the Dems have offered up so far. I don't have any guilt over slavery to deal with, I don't need my conscience soothed, so I don't fall into that trap - and that just pi$$es some people off. ;)

Name one black president then?? And don't say Bill Clinton, he just thought he was African-American. :)

[speechlesstx]

Obama said Wright is not the same person today that he met twenty years ago. Surely you didn't think they were attached at the hip. I have rabbis that I consider as mentors that I haven't seen awhile. They may have changed. I don't always attend the same shul and often I complete shabbos at home.

Bobby, tell me you aren't really buying that. From The Rolling Stone in February, 2007:

The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SH*T!"

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell's nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and "felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams."

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there.

I think they were attached at the hip.

Steve, you've got to be kidding me. It's hard for me to believe you don't know where Black theology started. Generations back when slavery was pressed upon the Blacks they questioned their White proclaimed "Christian" owners as to why they were treated differently in society. Often the only place they had to speak on this issue was at their segregated Church services and out of that grew human right and civil right issues in he 1960's and even now. Wow!

I knew that would get you going but I've already explained it before. The point is simple, there is not one "Christian" theology for blacks and one "Christian" theology for whites, there is one Christ and He established one church. It ain't like I don't know there is a "black theology" or how, when and why it started - it's just as wrong as any any "white theology" that justified enslaving blacks. Here's an example from one of Wright's inspirations, James Cone:

"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."

Sorry, but that isn't Christian theology, it's racist and has no place in the church - regardless of what happened in the past.

Past tense "was" and that's been awhile back since being named to any committee. You have it wrong again. Wright threw Obama under the bus. The retired Wright seemed to had thought that he was running for presidency. The only fault I have with Obama is that he didn't put Wright in his place sooner.

I think I said "now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus."

Name one black president then?? And don't say Bill Clinton, he just thought he was African-American. :)

I can't name one if there hasn't been one, but I do support the idea which is what I said. I just refuse to vote for anyone as liberal as Obama or any black with such an "Afrocentric" influence. I'm ready to get past the color of a person's skin, aren't you?

[BABRAM]

Bobby, tell me you aren't really buying that. From The Rolling Stone in February, 2007:?

1. I don't think that can be said of today's stats for black men in a traditional accepted White college vs those blacks in prison. But in context of the 1960's, a time directly after segregation, I'm not surprised if it's true.

2. Racism was part of the country in it's infancy stage and although via the proclamation of emancipation and civil rights of the 1960's that has brought people defined as African-American to a standard with the rest of the country, it's still exists on lower levels.

I think they were attached at the hip.

You have an opinion, not a fact. Even the parishioners (or deacons, I forget what they call themselves) of their Church have testified that they rarely have seen Obama in attendance and never was he in attendance with ranting of Wright's soundbites. That's already been investigated by the networks and proven fact. Obama has said his communication with Wright has been via phone conversations and few actual face to face discussions. Obama has never asked advice from Wright or his opinion concerning the politics or views of the campaign.

I knew that would get you going but I've already explained it before. The point is simple, there is not one "Christian" theology for blacks and one "Christian" theology for whites, there is one Christ and He established one church. It ain't like I don't know there is a "black theology" or how, when and why it started - it's just as wrong as any any "white theology" that justified enslaving blacks. Here's an example from one of Wright's inspirations, James Cone:? Sorry, but that isn't Christian theology, it's racist and has no place in the church - regardless of what happened in the past

That's because I recognize your side of religious history in the United States. It was made that way by the White Christians and it due to segregation. However Blacks used it for a sanctuary to discuss their treatment. The Black theology also provides the same gospel message the predominantly White Christian churches preach only with more of emphasis on human equality. I think your Christian testament would approve of that. Albeit today our government now affords people of color, human and civil rights, many of these churches that still preach Black theology are mixed with all races, including Whites. Obama and informed people (myself), comprehend the differences between Black theology, which is a fair Christian message, and the rants of Wrights on interjected opinions, such as thinking that our government introduced aids as a way to lower the Black population. Over the past years he has abused Black theology for his own extreme views.

I think I said "now that he's seemingly throwing Obama under the bus."

Some say, he did it for political reasons before having to campaign against McCain. If so then that's a good strategy, but the fact is he did denounce Wright's rants longs ago when the media first brought the issue up. Now he has cuts ties altogether as he should had done a year ago. To use the word "seemingly," seemingly Wright thought he was going to ride Obama's bus for his own extreme agenda (gathering publicity to himself), but Obama with all the respect he could muster finally had to kick his tuchus off.

I can't name one if there hasn't been one, but I do support the idea which is what I said. I just refuse to vote for anyone as liberal as Obama or any black with such an "Afrocentric" influence. I'm ready to get past the color of a person's skin, aren't you?

OK. I was interjecting humor when I asked you to name one black president. Obliviously we never have had one, which was my point. Are you asking me not to bring up race and neglect our country's history? If it doesn't apply to a subject, than you have my promise I want speak of it. But now your remarks about not voting for a person of "Afrocentric" influence isn't very becoming. It's your opinion to vote as you wish. However, I like living in America where we have different people from interesting backgrounds, just look at my family. I would never ask someone to disregard their ethnic heritage to be mainstream Amercian-Caucasian or any other. That would be disingenuous and disrespectful.

[progunr]

Hey Mods,
How many more of these anti-Obama threads is this member going to start? It's getting a little annoying:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search...archid=2734912


▒

Everyone here has the right to post what ever they want as long as it stay within the allowed content for the site.

If they so upset you, why do you keep reading and responding to them?

You can just ignore them you know?

[progunr]

Hey Mods,
How many more of these anti-Obama threads is this member going to start? It's getting a little annoying:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/search...archid=2734912


▒

Everyone here has the right to post what ever they want as long as it stays within the allowed content for the site.

If they so upset you, why do you keep reading and responding to them?

You can just ignore them you know?

[NeedKarma]

You can just ignore them ya know?

It's kind of hard to ignore this kind of dedication:

[speechlesstx]

]1. I don't think that can be said of today's stats...

2. Racism was part of the country in its infancy stage and although...

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.

You have an opinion, not a fact. Even the parishioners (or deacons, I forget what they call themselves) of their Church have testified that they rarely have seen Obama in attendance and never was he in attendance with ranting of Wright's soundbites. That's already been investigated by the networks and proven fact. Obama has said his communication with Wright has been via phone conversations and few actual face to face discussions. Obama has never asked advice from Wright or his opinion concerning the politics or views of the campaign.

Bobby, RS notes above that Obama “uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Obama said, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” And besides calling him his “mentor” he said, “he has been like family to me.” Those are facts, not opinions. If he never discussed politics with Wright why did he name him to a committee on his campaign?

That's because I recognize your side of religious history in the United States. It was made that way by the White Christians and it due to segregation. However Blacks used it for a sanctuary to discuss their treatment. The Black theology also provides the same gospel message the predominantly White Christian churches preach only with more of emphasis on human equality. I think your Christian testament would approve of that.

My point has nothing to do with recognizing “sides” of religious history or blacks using the church as” a sanctuary to discuss their treatment.” I recognize their history and don’t begrudge them using the church as such a sanctuary – but that has nothing to do with the validity of “black theology.” Wright claims, “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture, that was controlled by rich white people!” That’s factually incorrect, it’s a revisionist view created to support a racist theology that has no place in the church.

Albeit today our government now afford people of color, human and civil rights, many of these churches that still preach Black theology are mixed with all races…

I can’t help that some confused white dude buys into black theology, my church is colorblind.

OK. I was interjecting humor when I asked you to name one black president. Obliviously we never have had one, which was my point. Are you asking me not to bring up race and neglect our country's history?

Not at all, I’ve made it clear from the start of the campaign that race is not an issue for me and I’m not neglecting history - I was discussing Christian theology.

But now your remarks about not voting for a person of "Afrocentric" influence isn't very becoming. It's your opinion to vote as you wish. However, I like living in America where we have different people from interesting backgrounds, just look at my family. I would never ask someone to disregard their ethnic heritage to be mainstream Amercian-Caucasian or any other. That would be disingenuous and disrespectful.

Disregarding the first sentence, I feel exactly the same way. I would no more vote for a candidate with “Afrocentric” views than I would one with “Eurocentric” views. To do so would be an affront to everyone else…and that’s my point.

[BABRAM]

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.

Everyone? I think we should give our fellow Americans more credit for being well rounded about every subject, rather than a mass plighted by tunnel vision. Provided Obama gets the nomination, come November let's see if your "everyone" sees it. I'll try to let your "everyone" down as easy as possible.

Bobby, RS notes above that Obama “uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Obama said, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” And besides calling him his “mentor” he said, “he has been like family to me.” Those are facts, not opinions. If he never discussed politics with Wright why did he name him to a committee on his campaign?

Wright is the retired ex-pastor with extreme personal views. I have disagreements with rabbis. So? Controversial, but not of the context which Obama heard from later in those redundant soundbites. He was not at those specific services and again, to the blatant deafness of McCainites, it has been investigated by the media and proved that indeed Obama was not in attendance. And since when is being treated like family not an act of Christian kindness? That's a weird point to debate.

My point has nothing to do with recognizing “sides” of religious history or blacks using the church as” a sanctuary to discuss their treatment.” I recognize their history and don't begrudge them using the church as such a sanctuary – but that has nothing to do with the validity of “black theology.” Wright claims, “Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture, that was controlled by rich white people!” That's factually incorrect, it's a revisionist view created to support a racist theology that has no place in the church. I can't help that some confused white dude buys into black theology, my church is colorblind.

Well I assume you ingested some facts that I gave you earlier. Again Wright puts addendum to Black theology, that includes is his own personal views. Coincidentally, I don't buy that your so colorblind. Last post you told how you wouldn't vote for anyone "Afrocentric", and now your concerned over Jesus skin color. While not all Black theologians agree on Jesus' skin color, you should learn that every culture in the world has Jesus depicted to their surrounding. Have you ever seen portraits of "Japanese Jesus?" How about "Aryan Jesus" hanging on the walls of American art galleries? When the Irish came to America they were looked upon as the new black.

Black Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (July 1979, Vol. 2):

"Whether one examines the contributions of George Liele or Andrew Bryan at the Yamacraw Baptist Church in 1777, or that of Absalom Jones and Richard Allen at Bethel Methodist Church in 1787, it becomes very evident that the attempt by black people to relate God to the black experience in a way which called into question the forces."

Not at all, I've made it clear from the start of the campaign that race is not an issue for me and I'm not neglecting history - I was discussing Christian theology.

Fair enough. With so many Christian theology brands to choose from, like domination's, good luck.

Disregarding the first sentence, I feel exactly the same way. I would no more vote for a candidate with “Afrocentric” views than I would one with “Eurocentric” views. To do so would be an affront to everyone else…and that's my point.

What a surprise! We disagree again! As an American, I'd vote for either one!

[SkyGem]

The point wasn't stats or American history, but "the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in" Obama's "openly radical" background as RS put it. Seems everyone sees it but you my friend.

And in the meantime, it is HILLARY who continues to Climb in Popularity! Just look at the following! It appears Wright had the Wrong effect on Obama's campaign, but for Obama, it is too late to change that! This is from TODAY!

Political Radar: Obama's Negatives Rise, Clinton Tops McCain in New Poll

[NeedKarma]

OMFG!!! That's amazing!!!!!!

[BABRAM]

Steve- I didn't know that you and Sky were both voting for Hillary. So many new revelations in one day. Wow! :eek:

[speechlesstx]

Everyone? I think we should give our fellow Americans more credit for being well rounded about every subject, rather than a mass plighted by tunnel vision. Provided Obama gets the nomination, come November let's see if your "everyone" sees it. I'll try to let your "everyone" down as easy as possible.

Bobby, why are those of us who see Wright's influence on Obama, 20 years of membership, self-admitted mentor, friend, 'sounding board,' inspiration, etc. - and see the difference between Hillary's pastor's secret crime and Hagee's non-influence on McCain - the ones with tunnel vision? Even some of Wright's defenders noticed he went off the deep end this past weekend and acknowledge the justified problems Obama is in over this relationship - not to mention Obama and Wright themselves acknowledging the potential for controversy a year ago. And we have tunnel vision?

He was not at those specific services and again, to the blatant deafness of McCainites, it has been investigated by the media and proved that indeed Obama was not in attendance.

You keep saying that but not showing us. "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

And since when is being treated like family not an act of Christian kindness? That's a weird point to debate.

You're taking things in a direction I haven't gone again. Your point is irrelevant to what I said, the discussion was on Wright's influence on Obama and that comment was one facet of a larger context.

Well I assume you ingested some facts that I gave you earlier. Again Wright puts addendum to Black theology, that includes is his own personal views.

LOL, no - you assumed I was ignorant of things of which I'm not ignorant. I don't know of a pastor that doesn't inject his or her own views into sermons, but I know about the Christian church and Christian theology and Wright's racism and antics have no place in either.

Coincidentally, I don't buy that your so colorblind. Last post you told how you wouldn't vote for anyone "Afrocentric", and now your concerned over Jesus skin color.

I never expressed concern, I said Wright's comments were "a revisionist view created to support a racist theology."

While not all Black theologians agree on Jesus' skin color, you should learn that every culture in the world has Jesus depicted to their surrounding. Have you ever seen portraits of "Japanese Jesus?" How about "Aryan Jesus" hanging on the walls of American art galleries? When the Irish came to America they were looked upon as the new black.

Yes, Jesus has been depicted with various racial identities - that wasn't my point. The point is Wright's brand of 'Christianity' is fabricated to support racist theology. Again, from one of Wright's admitted inspirations, James Cone:

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love."

That's not all:

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Now you would have us believe that this man who would be president, who studied for two years at Occidental College, graduated from Columbia University and magna laude from Harvard Law School somehow didn't notice or comprehend this racist theology over a period of 20 years? Or, if he did it was just some insignificant area of disagreement with his friend and mentor?

Fair enough. With so many Christian theology brands to choose from, like domination's, good luck.

It has nothing to do with denominationalism, but the core principles of Christianity in which we do not find justification for racism and polarization in the church body.

What a surprise! We disagree again! As an American, I'd vote for either one!

That's odd Bobby, seeing as it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view.

[NeedKarma]

That's odd Bobby, seeing as it is the left that preaches against this "white dominated society" and I'm the one saying I wouldn't vote for someone with that world view.

So you WANT a "white dominated society"?

[speechlesstx]

It's kind of hard to ignore this kind of dedication:

Sure it is if you look at the page as is:

[BABRAM]

Steve-

Instead of me coming home after a long day at the office to play chase Republican ghost postulates, or going over and over Black history another time or two with you, or discussing the numerous theologies that Christians teach, I'll just say that a few things you've said in these threads are disturbing, and I completely disagree. Granted much of all our views are based on experiences, our cultures, and ethnic history. For example: my family often jests that our family's tree looks like the United Nations. I'll make no excuses, perhaps this does place my ideologies closer to Obama, than McCain (or Clinton for that matter). I do like the fact that Obama is liberal on some issues and I'll add my deep respect and gratitude for him being a civil rights lawyer. Your arguments mostly boil down to this, is Obama a racist? The answer is, absolutely not! I'm waiting for McCain to charge him otherwise in the national debates. McCainites will regret that decision.