[speechlesstx]

It's a fact that Black theology occurred because blacks were not seen as the human equals to be at white churches in the eyes of their white Christian slave owners...

Bobby, who's denying that? Regardless, there is no room for a racist theology in the church, and I refuse to justify it for whatever reason. It's that simple.

And I'm certainly not saying that you personally are responsible for their actions, but you should respect that African-Americans endured something that makes them unique in their struggles of hardships.

I do have that respect... it still does not justify a racist theology in the church.

For example: if I ever said to my rabbi, gabbai, or whipered in the cantor's ear, that Germany shouldn't be embarrassed, or shamed, or have remorse for hitler's hell on earth (and what the holocaust represented to Jews) or how it altered and effected our history... could you imagine the looks and correction that I would receive at shul? I'd be chastised until moshiach came or my natural death!

Somehow I see the holocaust in a much more eggregious light, but the fact is if the goal is racial unity then there is no room for a racist theology in the church... especially because of your next comment, we have made great strides and this is a setback.

Jeremiah Wright, in my book, is as religiously extreme in his personal views as many other "Christian" pastors, such as Hagee, or any other two dozen evangelicals sucking up attention and draining old ladies out of their retirement. In fact, Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in a commercial together represent two more strange ducks as well. Fortunately none of these clowns, black or white, are running for president.

I agree and disagree, I don't see Hagee as being as extreme as Wright. In fact, the most referenced example of his alleged anti-Catholic bigotry - calling the Catholic church the Great Whore - is an assumption. He never once said that in the video they use. Look it up. Otherwise, I have no use for televangelists - but they shouldn't be unfairly criticized any more than Obama, Wright or anyone else.

The Republicans used this as a smear tactic and they know it.

I guess you haven't noticed any of that from the Dems, eh? Like their latest ad purposely distorting McCain's 100 year remark? They're all going to get roughed up...

Shabbat Shalom my friend.

[speechlesstx]

No the base of liberation theology is not racist ;it is Marxist .But Rev Wright's interpretation is separatists so how could it not be racist ?

Exactly. What blows me away here is that we're being asked to excuse it. If this racism is justified, somebody please tell me where else we can justify racism.

[BABRAM]

Bobby, who's denying that? Regardless, there is no room for a racist theology in the church, and I refuse to justify it for whatever reason. It's that simple.

If it was that simple we would be in agreement between the differences of Wright's personal views and Black theology.

I do have that respect...it still does not justify a racist theology in the church.

And what racist theology would that be?

A Black Theology of Liberation

The Goal of a Black Theology of Liberation

"What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

Karl Barth--who was not black--recognized the legitimacy of this demand. "For this reason, Barth wrote, "in the relations and events in the life of his people, God always takes his stand unconditionally and passionately on this side alone: against the lofty and on behalf of the lowly; against those who already enjoy right and privilege and on behalf of those who are denied it and deprived of it."

Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless." But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity." "

Somehow I see the holocaust in a much more eggregious light, but the fact is if the goal is racial unity then there is no room for a racist theology in the church...especially because of your next comment, we have made great strides and this is a setback..

We (our nation as a whole) have made great strides, but why would respecting the hardships of African-Americans and understanding their plight as using their church as a haven to foster equality, not apply yesterday or today? I give them space to speak their peace or make their case and I'm not even a Christian.

I agree and disagree, I don't see Hagee as being as extreme as Wright. In fact, the most referenced example of his alleged anti-Catholic bigotry - calling the Catholic church the Great Whore - is an assumption. He never once said that in the video they use. Look it up. Otherwise, I have no use for televangelists - but they shouldn't be unfairly criticized any more than Obama, Wright or anyone else.

But yet Wright's extreme views, which BTW often abandon Black theology, are not his assumptions? Huh? Hagee has Catholics and Jews on greased sleds aimed toward a fiery eternal furnace. And yet one goofball's assumption is justified over another's? I wouldn't encourage that to be used as a defense. :eek:

I guess you haven't noticed any of that from the Dems, eh? Like their latest ad purposely distorting McCain's 100 year remark? They're all going to get roughed up...

You got to be kidding me? McCain's a distortion to himself. Every time the Republicans actually let Bozo-McCain out to play they end having to do damage control and the Dems are not even focusing on him yet. :p

McCain clarifies remark about oil, Iraq war

""My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters. "

[BABRAM]

A long time ago (1984 )the Pope ,then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote essays on what he saw as the flaws in liberation theology .He warned against the temptation to see the Christian message exclusively in a political context, thus missing the central role of Jesus Christ in man's liberation. He said liberation theology was dangerous becaused it fused “the Bible's view of history with Marxist dialectics."
No the base of liberation theology is not racist ;it is Marxist .But Rev Wright's interpretation is separatists so how could it not be racist ?

Tom, you might be interested in the following linked article. I know you're Catholic and I think the Catholic church does a lot of good. My posting the link has more to do with the borrowing of such ideology and not necessarily being good or bad, but that "Marxism" has been used and associated with many others to some degree. Personally when I read the word "Marxism" associated with commentary on theology or an individual, I'm more inclined to consider it an opinionated witch hunt than factually based.

Marxist background of John Paul II revealed in The Tablet - Wojtyla's book Catholic Social Ethics borrows fundamental concepts from Marxism @ TraditionInAction.org

[speechlesstx]

If it was that simple we would be in agreement between the differences of Wright's personal views and Black theology.

About Wright's "personal views," here's the thing (and this is the basis for my entire argument), he tells his people from the pulpit that it's "in the bible." Where? This is what's in my bible, and I'm sure in Wright's bible in Romans 12:

Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

And in Philippians 2:

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

The church has one universal basis - the bible - and in spite of varying interpretations in some areas the above principles are clear.

And what racist theology would that be?.

What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less.

That's not true, if it were that simple we would have no objection. Black theology is "reductionist," it reduces the gospel to one theme, liberation of the oppressed - and then takes it further in concluding this must be seen from the viewpoint of blacks. Wright's mentor, Cone, basically says whites as the oppressors must become "black." From an interview with William Hordern:

Hordern: To paraphrase a question put to Jesus, who then can become black?

Cone: I contend that if a white-skinned person is authentically black, then there is no need to assure him of his authenticity. For to be black is to know the ambiguity of the black experience, and this is true for one who is literally black. The certainty of a person’s affirmation of blackness is bound up with the struggle for liberation, and that experience has its own ambiguities. I find that the white-skinned person is worried too much about his own “salvation,” rather than about the liberation of the black community. I see no reason why I should spend time giving him personal counsel on how to be black.

I'm sorry, but I don't need counsel "on how to be black."

In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, "If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' (Psalm 10:14) to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper' (Psalm 72:12).

As if blacks are the only ones that are fatherless, needy and poor - and if they are they still find their hope through black theology? Again from the interview:

Hordern: In using the term “black” to describe all oppressed people, do you really speak to the need of oppressed people whose skins are of other colors? For example, in North America today the Indian people are taking pride in their history and are speaking of “Red Power.” Is a black theology a help or a hindrance to communicating with such people?

Cone: Whether black theology is a help or hindrance to other persons of color who are not black will have to be decided by the victims who are red, brown, or whatever color. I cannot answer that, but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel. In my experience with persons of color who are not Afro-American, they have not raised difficulties with my choice of blackness.

What the heck kind of theology says "but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel?" The very idea of "black theology" is exclusionary. Any objective person should take offense at a gospel based on black "authenticity." My bible says nothing of black "authenticity" as a requirement to be "liberated" by "the God the oppressed." Yes there is a need and obligation to literally liberate the oppressed, but this theology detracts from the gospel message of our need to be freed from the bondage of sin.

Black liberation theologians do not intend to allow the church--whether it be white or black--to evade this responsibility. It "cannot say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy. Having come before God as nothing and being received by him into his Kingdom through grace, the Christian should know that he has been made righteous (justified) so that he (or she) can join God in the fight for justice. Therefore, whoever fights for the poor, fights for God; whoever risks his life for the helpless and unwanted, risks his life for God."

No? Why can the church not "say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy" if that's the truth? The scriptures warn specifically of what happens to the "slothful" or the "sluggard." Should we not also?

Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless."

Talk about condescending BS, my concern and love for others is colorblind and if I catch myself doing anything for my "own religious piety" I quickly remind myself it's not about me. In the case of race relations it's more guilt than emotion and sentimentality, culturally, socially or self-imposed guilt off which black theology feeds. That is a barrier in race relations, a detriment to Christian theology and invariably defeats the purpose of "liberation" theology. There can be no liberation when one side is imposing guilt on the other.

But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

No, releasing oneself from bitterness, hatred and extending forgiveness is the path to power and dignity. Walter Williams gets it:

I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.

Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.

We (our nation as a whole) have made great strides, but why would respecting the hardships of African-Americans and understanding their plight as using their church as a haven to foster equality, not apply yesterday or today? I give them space to speak their peace or make their case and I'm not even a Christian.

Bobby, you keep acting as if I begrudge them a haven and understanding and besides the fact that I don't, it has nothing to do with my point on "black theology."

But yet Wright's extreme views, which BTW often abandon Black theology, are not his assumptions? Huh? Hagee has Catholics and Jews on greased sleds aimed toward a fiery eternal furnace. And yet one goofball's assumption is justified over another's? I wouldn't encourage that to be used as a defense. :eek:

The assumptions I referred to are on the part of Hagee's critics, not Hagee himself. Those who call him anti-semitic are working on assumptions also. But if he deserves criticism then he deserves criticism, just base it on the facts.

You got to be kidding me? McCain's a distortion to himself. Every time the Republicans actually let Bozo-McCain out to play they end having to do damage control and the Dems are not even focusing on him yet. :p

That's weak. A heck of a lot weaker than having to explain the "bitterness" of gun totin' religious fanatics, a 20 year relationship with a mentor the thinks the US invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks or hanging out with terrorists. The DNC commercial is blatantly dishonest and they know it.

[BABRAM]

Steve, you've been a good sport. I'm going to take the opportunity now to provide illumination through agreeing with you when possible. I've got a family to look after so instead of spending more time on a redundant subject that will have many sticking points, I'll close out and then let you have the last thoughts.

About Wright's "personal views," here's the thing (and this is the basis for my entire argument), he tells his people from the pulpit that it's "in the bible." Where? This is what's in my bible, and I'm sure in Wright's bible in Romans 12:

And in Philippians 2:

The church has one universal basis - the bible - and in spite of varying interpretations in some areas the above principles are clear.

That's not true, if it were that simple we would have no objection. Black theology is "reductionist," it reduces the gospel to one theme, liberation of the oppressed - and then takes it further in concluding this must be seen from the viewpoint of blacks. Wright's mentor, Cone, basically says whites as the oppressors must become "black." From an interview with William Hordern:

Actually it's factually true that Black theology does not. But I do agree, that in part, Black "liberation" theology, that affixed itself with various opinions, much later does. But still not at the degree of racism which most of the controversy is emitting. Back in the 1800's (and I forget the mans name), there was a black slave that escaped and he ended up taking vengeance by murdering sixty white people. Of course what he did was wrong, that's why most blacks of all Christian churches would rather go the route of MLK Jr. than Malcolm X, given most circumstances. Obama is without doubt much closer to MLK Jr..

I'm sorry, but I don't need counsel "on how to be black."

Sure you do. Repeat to yourself, "I'm black, I'm proud, and I'll vote for Obama." Never mind! But a healthy esteem is good for you!

As if blacks are the only ones that are fatherless, needy and poor - and if they are they still find their hope through black theology? Again from the interview:

What the heck kind of theology says "but I hope they are not excluded from my interpretation of the gospel?" The very idea of "black theology" is exclusionary. Any objective person should take offense at a gospel based on black "authenticity." My bible says nothing of black "authenticity" as a requirement to be "liberated" by "the God the oppressed." Yes there is a need and obligation to literally liberate the oppressed, but this theology detracts from the gospel message of our need to be freed from the bondage of sin.

The Christian bible didn't say anything about white theology either and blacks being inferior, but that's was taught for the better part of a century and unfortunately the notion still lingers albeit on a much smaller percentage scale today. MLK Jr. was correct to teach civil rights from a biblical perspective. As for Cone, it appears he's not speaking of literally being black. He actually inserts that the point is oppression and "yes" the black community has had marked poverty compared to whites. It is a fact that there are many black single parents, not that this does not happen to all ethnicity's.

No? Why can the church not "say that the poor are in poverty because they will not work, or that they suffer because they are lazy" if that's the truth? The scriptures warn specifically of what happens to the "slothful" or the "sluggard." Should we not also?.

Rest assure that Christian supremacist of the Aryan race down at the local KKK rally have rationalized that as applicable to all African-Americans. Of course, thank G-d, that doesn't apply to the far majority of the Christian church populace though. But I do agree that there is individual responsibilities, regardless of color.

Talk about condescending BS, my concern and love for others is colorblind and if I catch myself doing anything for my "own religious piety" I quickly remind myself it's not about me. In the case of race relations it's more guilt than emotion and sentimentality, culturally, socially or self-imposed guilt off of which black theology feeds. That is a barrier in race relations, a detriment to Christian theology and invariably defeats the purpose of "liberation" theology. There can be no liberation when one side is imposing guilt on the other.

It's more about civil and human rights as a conduit via their religion, not that I agree with everything that's being asserted from their point of view. But it's a platform to be heard. You're thinking like they are speaking of being liberated from you or the actions of your Church personally. Actually I don't read where they are imposing guilt on you. What they are more concerned with is the government as well, but I'm not going over that part again and again.

No, releasing oneself from bitterness, hatred and extending forgiveness is the path to power and dignity. Walter Williams gets it:

I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.

Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.

In part if Williams would just say the government acting like damn fools it would make more sense. Most African-Americans are not in conflict with any other race, they just have a such a different history to work from than most mainstream Americans.

Bobby, you keep acting as if I begrudge them a haven and understanding and besides the fact that I don't, it has nothing to do with my point on "black theology."

That's why it's a none factor for myself and doesn't raise my blood pressure.

The assumptions I referred to are on the part of Hagee's critics, not Hagee himself. Those who call him anti-semitic are working on assumptions also. But if he deserves criticism then he deserves criticism, just base it on the facts.

Steve, I'm not on his heaven' list. But really for me what he thinks is not that important nor to anyone in the Jewish community.

That's weak. A heck of a lot weaker than having to explain the "bitterness" of gun totin' religious fanatics, a 20 year relationship with a mentor the thinks the US invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks or hanging out with terrorists. The DNC commercial is blatantly dishonest and they know it.

I'm not sure what commercial you're speaking of since I don't have time to be watching much TV lately. I can't really address that one way or the other. As for my point though, the strength is so elementary that even Watson wouldn't need Sherlock's insights. It's 'McCain said something verses Wright said something,' not McCain vs. Obama. McCain's the guinea pig on the treadmill going nowhere. It's like Tom alluded to in another post in that the Republicans are not doing themselves any favors in finding ways to lose elections. In fact, I'm not so sure they are not trying to lose this one and yet save face for 2012.

[speechlesstx]

I'm going to do you a favor and leave my last word on this thread to address this:

Sure you do. Repeat to yourself, "I'm black, I'm proud, and I'll vote for Obama." Never mind! But a healthy esteem is good for you!

I'm white, I can't dance, but I do clap on 2 and 4! As Michelle Malkin asked, If “white people clap differently than black people,” how does Barack Obama clap? But hey, you may have hit on something to replace "yes, we can!"

Steve
P.S. Did you hear Dale Hansen rant about the Pacman deal? He said "If character doesn't matter, why don't they sign Osama bin Laden to play wide receiver? After all, he's 6'4", and we know nobody can catch him."

[BABRAM]

Tell Dale Hansen that as elusive as OBL has been he doesn't have Pacman's speed and run a 4.4 forty. :)

[tomder55]

After multiple postings on this thred I still think the key question has not been addressed. Obama sat in the pews of this church for over 20 years and listened to sermons (let's put aside the anti-American screeds for the moment ) that addressed black liberation theology... clearly a separatist if not racist,and in my view marxist theology. His book describes his conversion which suggests he bought into the theology. But he also wrote in his book that "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear."

This suggests to me that my guess that Obama attended the church more for the purpose of political convenience is probably the most accurate explanation to this strange relationship .Obama does not espouse separatism on the campaign trail and has been weakest when trying to explain the contradiction.

Now that Hillary's campaign is on the verge of being euthanized like the horse she bet on in the Kentucky Derby ,perhaps it's time for Obama to make a clean break like Oprah did and say something similar to what he said in his "victory speech "last night... that he is not perfect ;that he is a just a politician ,with the inherent weaknesses associated in the profession ,who thinks he would make a better President than the rest of the field.

[excon]

who thinks he would make a better President than the rest of the field.

Hello tom:

I don't know if it was a question, but I'm answering anyway. I think he'd be a better president than the other two.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello tom:

I dunno if it was a question, but I'm answering anyway. I think he'd be a better president than the other two.

excon

Ex, the question I don't recall seeing answered with much substance is why? I mean, beyond being able to send a thrill up Chris Matthews' leg, what makes him the man?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

He's NOT the man. He's, in my view, the lessor of the evils we are being presented with. I KNOW what Hillary will do. I KNOW what McCain will do. I wouldn't do ANY of that.

I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. I certainly don't think he'll be worse, and, of course, he could actually be much better.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

He's NOT the man. He's, in my view, the lessor of the evils we are being presented with. I KNOW what Hillary will do. I KNOW what McCain will do. I wouldn't do ANY of that.

I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. I certainly don't think he'll be worse, and, of course, he could actually be much better.

excon

Sounds a lot like why I'm voting for McCain :D