Associating with Apostasy:
Obama’s Troubling Relationship with Black Theology

Politics, Religion — By on March 18, 2008 at 12:44 am

It would be difficult to dispute that Barack Obama has a problem. But despite what is being claimed by many bloggers and journalists, the Senator’s biggest problem isn’t his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Sen. Obama’s association with the rogue pastor is forgivable; his association with apostasy, however, is inexcusable.
Obama remains a member of an apostate, heretical church that makes no distinction between faith and politics. Trinity United Church of Christ adheres to a black liberation theology, a strain of heresy that makes Christianity subservient to a twisted, racialist political ideology. The purpose of Black theology is, as the movement’s founding theologian claims, to make political “liberation” the “central theme of the biblical message.”
Consider their introduction on the “About Us” section of the church’s website:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

Trinity United Church of Christ is a racist church. That should be beyond dispute. But if you disagree, substitute the word “white” for “black” and “Aryan” for “African.” Now consider how comfortable you would be with Hillary Clinton or John McCain going to such a church.
But it gets worse. Beneath that statement they add:

“The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Several of the points seem laudatory and explicitly Christian (#1, 2, 3, 5) while a few are unnecessarily divisive (#4, 6, 8, 9). But the use of orthodox Christian terms (salvation, reconciliation) is given perverse new meanings in black liberationist thought.
For example, consider the work of James Hal Cone, the founder of Black theology. (When Sean Hannity interviewed Wright, the pastor asked his interviewer, “How many of Cone’s books have you read?”) Cone once wrote:

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

This dangerous, satanic, perversion of the Gospel is the foundation of Trinity United Church of Christ.
This is the crux of the problem for Obama: Set aside the inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Wright, even concede that the Senator knew nothing of his mentor’s hate-filled rants, and you’re still left with the troubling fact that for 20 years Obama was member of a church that is founded on this racist and anti-Christian theology.
This is the distorted theology that Obama’s daughters were being taught in Sunday School. This is the despicable theology that was being preached while Obama was asleep in the pews. This is the divisive theology that Obama’s fellow church members embraced and spread throughout the black community in Chicago. And yet we’re to believe that despite being immersed in this wicked, hateful theological sewage for two decades Obama wasn’t aware of what his pastor or his church believed?
At RedState, Jeff Emanuel highlights the horns of a dilemma that Obama faces:

Joining Wright’s church was either about religion — which is evidence that Obama likely has far too much in common race-and-America-hating-wise with Jeremiah Wright than anybody allowed near the presidency can be rightly allowed to have — or it was about politics and snowing the public into thinking that he had certain religious beliefs, until such a time as that relationship of political expediency was no longer needed — something which is troubling in its own right.

I choose to believe that Obama is not a racist and does not agree with the basic tenets of his church. Yet I find the alternative explanation just as troubling.
Imagine if I were to spend 20 years attending the Aryan Church of the White Christ. Unlike the nice people in the pews, I myself am not a racist–but I didn’t disassociate myself with them either. I looked the other way and feigned ignorance of what my church teaches even when presented with evidence that I would have to be a fool to have ignored. Would I be a person of integrity, much less one who is qualified to be the President of the United States?
No. No, I wouldn’t be.
And neither is Barack Obama.


Tags: , , , , ,
  • clancy

    Stick with the Sermon On the Mount, believe it and live it and you’ll make more sense and, with God’s Will, you’ll come around to the Light. Anything else you do, everything you write, exposes you as a fellow traveler who has lost his sight.
    Here is something for you and your readers to ponder: When James Hal Cone referred to “the white enemy,” he was, indeed, referring to “the white enemy,” not “the white friend.” The question, then, is, which are you?
    Your fumbling attempt to interpret Cone’s writing and the black Christian experience is alarming and would give anyone who yearns for the Truth and the Light pause to rightfully question your motives. Think, for Christ’s sake, as though your life depended on it. Maybe you’ll understand and you’ll stop trying to infect others with your fear.

  • Mike Toreno

    Yeah, Joe, Falwell’s saying that America deserved the September 11 attacks, Hagee’s blaming Hurricane Katrina on America, all the anti-American and hateful remarks that vomit forth from “evangelical” “churches” every day of the year, all those bother you not at all. Any criticism of a white, right-wing preacher is an attack on religion.
    But it’s different coming from a black liberal, eh?
    Well, Joe, we know a little more about you now, don’t we?

  • http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2008/03/politics-of-religion.html Mister Snitch!

    Obama stuck with his church for political reasons. Then he abandoned it for political reasons.

  • http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com Big Daddy Weave

    Joe,
    Ya ever blogged about the “heresy” that somehow manages to fall under the umbrella of “conservative evangelicalism” these days??
    Perhaps you’ll answer the question that Hannity dodged? How many Jim Cone books have you read? Better yet, have you ever studied any form of liberation theology whether it be the Black, Roman Catholic, Feminist, or the Jewish variety? Every read Reuther, Gutierrez, Althius-Reid, or Ellis?
    You should really take the time to study liberation theology before concluding that an entire church is racist. Do you know members of that church personally? Do you know their hearts? You sound like an angry pharisee in this post. Hopefully in the future, you’ll take a more Christ-like tone.

  • http://thebronxblogger.blogspot.com Matthew Goggins

    Joe,
    Ah, you have hit someone else over the head with a heresy rap.
    At best, these sort of pronouncements end up being some theological molehill that has been magnified by a Calvinistic microscope into an exaggerated Everest. At worst, they indite pure souls whose only sin is to disagree with your sense of the way things oughta be.
    Except today, I find myself in near-total agreement with you.
    Rev. Wright’s preaching is incendiary polemic. He preaches hate and calls it love. He cites fables he knows to be thoroughly, utterly false, such as AIDS being a genocidal invention of American scientists, and calls it the God’s honest truth. He’s not a cranky, rascist uncle, like Ron Paul, he is an active force for evil, like Louis Farrakhan.
    Whether or not he is personally evil, I cannot judge. Perhaps he deeply regrets his snake-oil routine and cannot find the strength and courage to repudiate it. Or perhaps there is some other consideration driving the man which I do not know or understand. But the man’s actions, his mission, is evil.
    And if Joe wants to call it heresy, that’s fine by me.

  • Tim L

    Joe,
    I think you need to look at the Cone text in a different context (as one example of what is in my opinion wrong with this post).
    Let’s take the example of abortion. You may not say it this way, but you refuse to accept a God that is OK with abortion. This does not change who God is!, it does not mean you define who God is! You are simply stating what you KNOW of God. I also believe that God does not condone racism. We need to murder the idea that he would! We need to murder the God who would. A very strange way for me to speak, but this does not mean to “murder” God because it is not God, the god of racism is a false god.
    I believe that you believe in getting rid of (murdering) false god’s as well.

  • ucfengr

    Yeah, Joe, Falwell’s saying that America deserved the September 11 attacks, Hagee’s blaming Hurricane Katrina on America, all the anti-American and hateful remarks that vomit forth from “evangelical” “churches” every day of the year, all those bother you not at all. Any criticism of a white, right-wing preacher is an attack on religion.
    Joe has been critical of Falwell, as well as Pat Robertson. I don’t know about Hagee, but then again, I suspect if Hagee got the airtime on CNN and MSNBC that Falwell and Robertson did, he’d be critical of him too. Regarding the “anti-American and hateful remarks” coming out of “evangelical churches”, you need to be a bit more specific. I know that Robertson, and perhaps Falwell, have called various national calamities God’s judgment on our nation, and while I don’t agree with them, there is Biblical precedent for God using national calamities as a call to repentance, but what is the Biblical justification for calling out the US for bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Seems kind of silly, the bombing of Japan happened 50+ years before 9/11 and was the culmination of a war of aggression started by Japan, in which the Japanese committed atrocities like the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. Even if we accept Wright’s premise that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack, it still doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  • http://dontdrinkthekingswine.blogspot.com Daniel Briggs

    Wow, only 6 comments in and already so much to rebut.
    Mike Toreno wrote: “Falwell’s saying that America deserved the September 11 attacks, Hagee’s blaming Hurricane Katrina on America, all the anti-American and hateful remarks that vomit forth from ‘evangelical’ ‘churches’ every day of the year, all those bother you not at all. Any criticism of a white, right-wing preacher is an attack on religion. But it’s different coming from a black liberal, eh”
    As the aphorism goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” That Joe did not explicitly bring up the errors of Falwell and Hagee, et al., does not mean that he finds no fault with them. Please don’t chase rabbits to divert your attention from what Joe is saying: A pastor–ANY pastor–who preaches vitriolic diatribes like Wright did is simply not filled with the Holy Spirit. And ANY pastor who sticks God into a racialist mindset has missed the point.
    Big Daddy Weave wrote: “How many Jim Cone books have you read? Better yet, have you ever studied any form of liberation theology whether it be the Black, Roman Catholic, Feminist, or the Jewish variety? . . . You should really take the time to study liberation theology before concluding that an entire church is racist. Do you know members of that church personally? Do you know their hearts?”
    “You will know them by their fruits.” -Matthew 7:16, 20 A man who speaks with the venom of Jeremiah Wright is not filled with the Holy Spirit. Righteous indignation is one thing; racist indignation is another altogether.
    Tim L wrote: “Let’s take the example of abortion. You may not say it this way, but you refuse to accept a God that is OK with abortion.”
    Tim L., unless I misunderstand you, there is no way to respond to this other than with outright dismissal. How anyone can argue that God is okay with abortion is beyond me.

  • http://www.flashpointfiles.blogspot.com sarah flashing

    I’ve read Ruether, Schussler-Fiorenza, and yes, I’ve read some Cone. Feminist,womanist, Mujera, and black liberation theology all in the very same fashion approach the interpretation of Scripture from first their own experience. In feminist thought, this is referred to as a hermeneutic of suspicion, essentially that everyone is out to get them so they must interpret scripture first through that understanding, nevermin a historical-grammatical reading of the text.There is no real distinction in how the liberation theologies interpret Scripture.
    I agree that it is his association with the church that is most problematic, I made that point yesterday in my blog. If you parse Obama’s words thus far, he says he has issues with all of Wrights words that have been reported in the media, this allows him to cling to whatever else remains of Wright and the church.

  • http://dontdrinkthekingswine.blogspot.com Daniel Briggs

    Ms. Flashing, you make an excellent point. Obama’s knee-jerk response seems to be, “I reject (and denounce) whatever is offensive to someone, once it’s pointed out to me.” If someone watches every single sermon preached by Wright in the 25+ years that Obama has attended Trinity [laugh]Unity[laugh] and finds more hateful and racist speech in each sermon, will Barack reject (and denounce) all of it?

  • http://www.flashpointfiles.blogspot.com sarah flashing

    Daniel,and don’t forget Obama’ positive posture…he regards Wright as a well-respected and noteable theologian (my words for his claims), who he happens to disagree with on just these statements that have been reported on. I’m not sure how easy it is to separate the Wright problem from the overall problem of black liberation theology.I don’t think we will hear obama denounce this theological movement today, rather he will speak about what he believes. But frankly, until he resigns his membershp, I don’t think anything he says will be helpful to him.

  • Rob

    So Joe says Obama turns a deaf ear to racism and heresy. Four years ago Joe said quite seriously that John Kerry was a war criminal. Meanwhile, McCain hustles to render obeisance to every nutbag preacher on the right fringe.
    The Joe spin is revving up. I bet it gets worse from here.

  • http://mumonno.blogpsot.com Mumon

    Really, when you can start directing some of your vitriol at yourself and your own troubling theology, not to mention John “slave auction” Hagee and Rod “Death to Islam” Parsley, two of John McCain’s favorite preachers, then you might get back a smidgen of moral authority.
    Til then, you’re simply a racist.
    Wright’s most inflammatory statements happen to be true, namely, that America was founded on racism.
    That’s 100% correct and true.
    So in trying to accuse Wright of being religiously incorrect, you give more fodder to Max Blumenthal.
    I’ll be sure to key him into this.

  • http://randythomas.org Randy

    Joe, I have been looking for someone to finally address this issue forthrightly and with a balanced Biblically based worldview.
    While your post isn’t a thorough exposition of all that Rev. Wright espouses, you do bring about the obvious… he preaches a racist gospel and not the Love of Christ available to all.
    The scriptures warn of being “doubled minded.” The metaphor is along the lines of a double minded man is tossed about on the sea while a man who’s trust is in the Lord is solid and unwavering.
    Obama is a double minded man being tossed about. I don’t want that in a President.

  • http://beyondourreach.blogspot.com Jake

    Wow, Joe, you’re taking some shots on this one. But you’re right on. I made a related point yesterday: The Real Problem.

  • Oclarki

    This post is going to generate more heat than light in the comments, I’m afraid. It’s interesting that the usual suspects first instinct is to act like four year olds and cry about what someone else may or may not have said. The issue is Trinity UCC and Jeremiah Wright.
    If we are going to have a discussion about whether Obama’s church is heretical or not, the opinions of people who have limited knowledge of Christian doctrine are unworthy of consideration.
    The bottom line is, what kind of gospel is being preached at Trinity UCC? Is the work of Jesus to redeem all mankind through his death and resurrection preeminent? Are the two greatest commandments being observed and preached (love God and love your neighbor)? From what I can ascertain, the main focus on trinity UCC is not where it needs to be if it is to consider itself part of the body of Christ. When Christ walked the earth did he proclaim that Rome needed to be damned and that it was founded on hate? No. Christ’s maessage was never political, and churches that make the political preeminent in their teaching are walking on thin ice whether they are on the right or the left.
    Oh, and Mike Toreno, you said: all the anti-American and hateful remarks that vomit forth from “evangelical” “churches” every day of the year When may I ask was the last time you set foot in an evangelical church?

  • DaveD

    “Obama remains a member of an apostate, heretical church that makes no distinction between faith and politics.”
    Oh, you mean like wanting to remake the Constitution to be “more in line with what God wants”? Huckabee made no such distinction either.
    Rob:”So Joe says Obama turns a deaf ear to racism and heresy. Four years ago Joe said quite seriously that John Kerry was a war criminal. Meanwhile, McCain hustles to render obeisance to every nutbag preacher on the right fringe.”
    So, calling Kerry a war criminal is racist? Or heresy against the Christian faith? McCain trying to suck up to the same people he called poison a few years ago is racism or heresy? Do you even understand the English language?
    Mumon on the Racist:”Really, when you can start directing some of your vitriol at yourself and your own troubling theology, not to mention John “slave auction” Hagee and Rod “Death to Islam” Parsley, two of John McCain’s favorite preachers, then you might get back a smidgen of moral authority.
    Til then, you’re simply a racist.”
    John “Slave Auction” Hagee? Slander or libel? Unless you know of something I don’t you’re just angry at a white right-winger. Rod “Death to Islam” Parsley? Tell me, oh clear seeing one, is Islam a threat globally or not? I’ll give you a hint; every where in the world right this minute where there is armed conflict going on (with the exception of China killing the monks) Muslims are involved on one side or another.
    Iraq, Afghanistan, rebels in South America, Sudan, the Tamil Tigers, Israel, various other African countries, etc. Facts are facts.
    Booker T Washington said that “Our ability to make a dollar in the mill is more important than our ability to spend it at the theater.”
    Other blacks called him a sell out.
    Bill Cosby openly proclaims that maybe the blacks in America should make their kids go to school, keep them away from drugs and gangs,get real jobs and make something out of their lives etc.
    Other blacks called him a sell out.
    For 150 years everytime a black leader has said that blacks need to take care of themselves he has been derided by those black leaders like Jeremiah Wright who have become RICH by telling blacks it’s all someone else’s fault.
    Until you admit that, you’re just another racist whiner, Mumon.
    DD

  • Rob

    “If we are going to have a discussion about whether Obama’s church is heretical or not, the opinions of people who have limited knowledge of Christian doctrine are unworthy of consideration.”
    That includes you. When can we expect the almighty to weigh in on this thread?
    Oclarki’s ham-handed attempt at well-poisoning aside, why don’t we drop the pretense that this post is about religion?

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach

    This all makes me sick, but so does Mormon theology (Mitt). Should religious views shape our voting? Hilliary has wack views as well I’m sure, as does McCain.

  • Jack

    John Hagee calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran from the pulpit and is a cheerleader for war. Obama’s preacher correctly points out America’s hypocrisy and militarism.
    I know politically Obama must distance himself from his minister because of the media and many of our so-called christian leaders like to maintain the fairy tale that all our country’s actions are righteous. Yeah, I know, you can dismiss our country’s rich history of oppressing the brown people’s of the world (philippines, latin America, vietnam, etc.) by evoking the “hate america Left” rhetoric, but the truth is the truth. The Christ I read about in the Bible is not afraid to speak the truth.
    Let me ask you this Joe-pretend you are a black man living during the american revolution and you hear about the new constitution proclaiming “all men are created equal…and endowed with their creator with certain unalienable rights”. You would have a different perspective on things.

  • http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com James
  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Luckily, we have Barack Obama’s words on the issue:

    But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
    In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
    “People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

    Morally, evidently Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama poop bigger ones than Joe Carter, or Hagee, or Parsley, or McCain ever will.
    David D.:
    You are making assertions without proof.
    And if the white sheet fits, wear it.

  • http://csaproductions.com/blog/ Brendt

    Wow! The reading comprehension skills around here are fascinating!
    Joe actually goes out of his way to make clear that Wright is not the main issue, and yet so many commenters want to justify what Wright has said.
    The other thing that really sticks out is the repeated use (here and elsewhere) of the justification of Wright by citing others who have done similar things. Never mind that Joe (or to whomever this “argument” is directed) said nothing of praise regarding the latters’ statements. Only those things that are done by only one person, in the entire history of the world, are open to criticism. After all, we only have to be as good as (or a bit better than) the next guy. That is the message of Christianity, right?
    I think I was eight the last time that I used the “I know you are, but what am I?” stream of logic.

  • DaveD

    Mumon:”David D.:
    You are making assertions without proof.
    And if the white sheet fits, wear it.”
    You mean assertions like “Slave Auction” etc?
    Sir, you are trying to change the subject to deflect from your own falsehoods.
    What proof would you like? The quotes from Jackson, Sharpton and others calling Cosby every name in the book? How about that same crowd referring to Condalezza Rice as a “house n***er”? Or bashing Colin Powel? All the while exalting the likes of 50 Cent or OJ Simpson? How about W.E.B. DuBois and his “talented tenth” rhetoric?
    Should I do a search of the AP, CNN etc and post every article about the violence Islam is perpetrating around the world because you are unwilling to do so? Honestly, it’s not like you’d read the links even if I did…because you don’t want to acknowledge the truth.
    When I presented you with questions and reproofs of your lies you did what every good lefty does…respond by ignoring the question and name calling.
    You are intellectually dishonest and a bigot. You , and all those who think like you, are responsible for the state of the majority of blacks in America today. The KKK is probably proud of you.
    DD

  • http://centuri0n.blogspot.com Frank Turk

    Not for nothin’, but I don’t think Obama’s supporters checked his theological credentials before they threwnin with him — pretty sure he didn’t get examined by the session, if you see what I’m saying. It’s like coming out at the last minute and saying, “McCain doesn’t know anything about the protestant confessions!”
    Obama’s church and christian faith (notice the lack of caps all around) are simply endemic of American public religion. He’s not an actual Mormon or JW, so the press doesn’t know what to do about it, and those of us who do care weren’t voting for him anyway.

  • http://vitaro.wordpress.com Rob V.

    Oclarki seems to be one of the only commentors who gets the meaning behind Joe’s post today.

    When Christ walked the earth did he proclaim that Rome needed to be damned and that it was founded on hate? No. Christ’s maessage(sic) was never political, and churches that make the political preeminent in their teaching are walking on thin ice whether they are on the right or the left.

    I have NO problem with minority groups trying to achieve political and economic equality – it is so important. But you can’t wrap that cause up in the Gospel, because the Gospel isn’t about economics or politics, it’s about the salvation of our souls. ALL our souls.

  • http://www.ivchristiancenter.com Greg Marquez

    Joe:
    I think part of the problem here and the reason for some of the anger is that white people only seem to recognize racism as being anti-Christian when it is being directed at them.
    As I understand it you are a member of the reformed church a sister church of the South African church which theologically justified apartheid. It seems to me that no one is qualified to speak out against Pastor Wright’s theology who didn’t speak out against the South African Reformed Church’s theology. The same could be said of members of the Southern Baptist or Southern Methodist Churches. How can someone who is a member of a church which exits only because it theologically defended slavery, be qualified to speak out against anti-white racism.
    And don’t get me started on the anti-Mexican fervor which has been roiling conservative circles for the past few years.
    Greg Marquez
    goyomarquez@earthlink.net

  • William

    As far as claims that Mike Huckabee didn’t separate religion and politics, he did to the degree that it is possible. However, this is not an issue and I take a dim view of anyone who cannot defend their own point of view without assailing another’s. It merely shows that there is no defense.
    An individual that is truly Christian cannot and should not abandon his Christian beliefs for the sake of politics.
    The problem Joe is rightly pointing out with liberation theology is that it picks politics as the starting point and makes Christ subservient.
    Any theology that places the world above Christ is of this world and not of Christ. This should be plain to anyone.

  • Oclarki

    Rob,
    You said:
    If we are going to have a discussion about whether Obama’s church is heretical or not, the opinions of people who have limited knowledge of Christian doctrine are unworthy of consideration.”
    That includes you. When can we expect the almighty to weigh in on this thread?
    Sounds like sour grapes to me. Your lack of knowledge isn’t my problem.

  • carissa

    i am no expert, but i have recently started researching Black theology a bit. it seems you are reading worse things into Cone and the rest than are really there – as someone pointed out, “white enemy” versus “friend” and even the meaning of “Blackness.” perhaps i am simply “believing the rhetoric,” but i understand Black and Blackness to be terms that go far beyond mere skin color in Black theology. that’s why it’s unfair to substitute the word “white” in there. there are other things too…
    i acknowledge that i’m politically naive, but i don’t think i’m a naive person or naive Christian in general. this is why this whole obama/wright issue is puzzling to me – it doesn’t seem to be THAT big a deal to me. even what you quoted in this post doesn’t seem to be the hateful, despicable perversion you make it out to be. liberation theology it is, and you are free to agree or disagree with that hermeneutic (i certainly wouldn’t call myself a liberationist… but i wouldn’t call ALL such theologians damnable heretics, either). overall, it seems you and others are getting much more indignant than you need to, and i have to wonder why. am i simply misguided? what’s really going on? i am asking honest questions here. i just don’t get the feeling i’ve found honest answers yet, and that worries me.

  • oclarki

    Carissa,
    Leaving aside my annoyance at your inability to use proper capitalization. Forget the politics, look at the message being preached from a purely Christian standpoint. Is Rev. Wright preaching in a way that uplifts the body of Christ and brings Him glory?

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    DaveD:
    In case you haven’t noticed, Sharpton and others aren’t Jeremiah Wright.
    And your attempt to ju jitsu the Republican’s racism issue is amusing, but impotent.
    It’s folks like Carter, and you that are silently assenting to the real racists, folks like Tony Perkins and Rod Parsely.
    Disgusting.
    Rob V.:
    …the Gospel isn’t about economics or politics, it’s about the salvation of our souls. ALL our souls….
    Perhaps not, but that’s a good reason not to be a Christian then. Too much about greed, and not enough about justice, or even meeting people’s basic needs.
    But that still makes Jeremiah Wright the moral superior of “Christians” like you and Carter.

  • Joel Griffith

    You might want to check out this link:
    http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
    It’s an investigation of Black Liberation Theology by Dr. H. Wayne House, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In my view, it’s a well-written, well balanced critique.

  • Joel Griffith

    You might want to check out this link:
    http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
    It’s an investigation of Black Liberation Theology by Dr. H. Wayne House, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In my view, it’s a well-written, well balanced critique.

  • Joel Griffith

    You might want to check out this link:
    http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
    It’s an investigation of Black Liberation Theology by Dr. H. Wayne House, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In my view, it’s a well-written, well balanced critique.

  • Joel Griffith

    You might want to check out this link:
    http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
    It’s an investigation of Black Liberation Theology by Dr. H. Wayne House, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In my view, it’s a well-written, well balanced critique.

  • johnW

    The appropriate response to this false mis-characterization of Obama’s church is to let the words of Luke Chapter 4 speak for itself.
    At the beginning of his ministry, Christ quotes from Isaiah:
    18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,
    19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
    20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
    21 And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears…
    28 And they were all filled with wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things;
    29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
    [Joe Carter: full of wrath against the Gospel of Jesus Christ along with Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and the rest of our modern day pharisees]
    If your gospel does not give hope to the oppressed and downtrodden-IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.
    Obama’s church website: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

  • ed elliott

    Not to mention Trinity’s affiliation with the truly apostate UCC.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    BTW, clearly McCain’s affair with Rod Parsely is emboldening our enemies, not Obama’s words about his pastor…
    http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=165092

    elevangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio and his spiritual adviser, has called for eradicating Islam as a ‘false religion’.
    Senator John McCain hailed Parsley, as the Ohio megachurch pastor called upon Christians to wage a “”war”” against Islam to destroy it.
    On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus. During the rally McCain called the evangelical minister a “”spiritual guide.”” …
    In the past Parsley’s church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

    Really, who’d be better qualified to deal with Iran’s theocracy, a guy who panders to theocrats, or a guy who goes to a church that preaches a wholistic concept of liberation?
    Seems like a no-brainer to me…

  • ucfengr

    If your gospel does not give hope to the oppressed and downtrodden-IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.
    How does the Rev. Wright give hope to the oppressed and downtrodden? Maybe it just me and my faulty white brain, but I fail to see how telling congregants that, in essence, ‘you don’t have a chance because “whitey” is keeping you down’, is all that hopeful. In fact, I find it quite depressing. What’s hopeful about telling people that the “government” developed HIV to kill you and your family or that the “government” uses drugs to imprison you?
    When James Hal Cone referred to “the white enemy,” he was, indeed, referring to “the white enemy,” not “the white friend.” The question, then, is, which are you?
    To all making this argument, your case might be made stronger if you can find Cone or Wright making reference to “the white friend” to differentiate from “the white enemy”. Granted I’ve only done a cursory search of their writings, but I can only find references to the “white enemy”.

  • oclarki

    JohnW,
    You are completely mischaracterizing the passege you quote. The reason the people in the synagogue were furious is because Jesus deliberately quoted a passage from Isaiah that phrophsized the Messiah. In effect Jesus was claiming to be the messiah. The people’s reaction was based on the fact that they believed he was committing blasphemy. They weren’t angry becasue he was claiming solidarity with the oppressed and deliverance of the poor, they were angry because he was claming to be the fulfillmet of the messianic prophecy. Please correct your error and apologize to Joe for slandering a brother in Christ.

  • ucfengr

    BTW, clearly McCain’s affair with Rod Parsely is emboldening our enemies
    When did you start getting talking points from the Tehran Times (Iran’s leading international newspaper)? I can’t imagine why they would want to create an impression that John McCain has a close, personal relationship with Rod Parsley (a man McCain apparently met once about 3 weeks ago and whose church he has never attended) or why they might prefer a President committed to pulling out of the Iraq; can anybody help me with that?

  • http://www.leanleft.com tgirsch

    Liberation is “unnecessarily divisive?”

  • johnW

    I will let the word speak for itself.
    You are correct-they were upset that Christ was saying he was the messiah, however the passage quoted by Christ also describes how this messiah was going to bring good tidings to the poor and oppressed. Indeed, the fact this passage is in our bible indicates the importance of this part of his ministry. FYI, the acceptable year of the lord refers to the year of jubilee discussed in the book of Leviticus (it was a time of debt forgiveness and land reform).
    I will apologize to Joe if and when he apologizes for calling Obama’s church apostate.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr :
    When did you start getting talking points from the Tehran Times (Iran’s leading international newspaper)?
    As you can readily verify from my recent diary over at Kos, I got it not from Tehran Times, but evidently we both got them from…wait for it…Wingnut Daily, the extremist publication with which Joe Carter’s associated.
    I can’t imagine why they …might prefer a President committed to pulling out of the Iraq; can anybody help me with that?
    Likely it has something to do with the fact that the Iranians have been there & done that re: wars in or near Iraq within the past 3 decades.
    Now if that makes them morally superior to George W. Bush and the repugnant party, well, I’d do some repenting if I were them or Joe Carter…

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr :
    When did you start getting talking points from the Tehran Times (Iran’s leading international newspaper)?
    As you can readily verify from my recent diary over at Kos, I got it not from Tehran Times, but evidently we both got them from…wait for it…Wingnut Daily, the extremist publication with which Joe Carter’s associated.
    I can’t imagine why they …might prefer a President committed to pulling out of the Iraq; can anybody help me with that?
    Likely it has something to do with the fact that the Iranians have been there & done that re: wars in or near Iraq within the past 3 decades.
    Now if that makes them morally superior to George W. Bush and the repugnant party, well, I’d do some repenting if I were them or Joe Carter…

  • ucfengr

    As you can readily verify from my recent diary over at Kos, I got it not from Tehran Times, but evidently we both got them from…wait for it…Wingnut Daily, the extremist publication with which Joe Carter’s associated.
    But your link goes to The Tehran Times (Iran’s leading international newspaper), not Kos or “Wingnut Daily” (a publication with which I am unfamiliar).
    Likely it has something to do with the fact that the Iranians have been there & done that re: wars in or near Iraq within the past 3 decades.
    You really need to be a little more specific as to why Iran thinks its wars in the region have anything to do with our’s.

  • ucfengr

    As you can readily verify from my recent diary over at Kos, I got it not from Tehran Times, but evidently we both got them from…wait for it…Wingnut Daily, the extremist publication with which Joe Carter’s associated.
    And of course that ignores what appears to be the case that McCain met Parsley once, on a podium in Ohio, and has never attended his church. Contrast this with Obama who attended Trinity for most of his adult life, takes his wife and kids there, and put the pastor on his campaign team. If you are trying to make the case that Parsley and Wright are equally bad, it has hard to make the argument that McCain has to answer for anything, while Obama has quite a lot.

  • ucfengr

    You really need to be a little more specific as to why Iran thinks its wars in the region have anything to do with our’s.
    Actually, don’t. That ground has been plowed pretty thoroughly and I see no need to revisit it on this thread.

  • carissa

    oclarki,
    just to clarify, i can capitalize perfectly well; i just think that capital letters are ugly, if you want to know the truth. this isn’t the academy, it’s the internet.
    beyond that – i am in no way saying that the Rev. Wright is preaching in an uplifting way. many of the comments he made are condemnable. however, i don’t know about you, but i never believed barack obama was an evangelical Christian, nor did i ever believe that the church he went to was an evangelical Christian church. so why is everyone so shocked and offended? many other presidents have been the most nominal, marginal “Christians” you can find. why is THIS unorthodoxy worse than others’?
    trust me, i’m not going to vote for obama, but there are plenty of reasons other than this one. it seems silly to hold him to a “Christian” standard that nobody up til now expected him to live up to.

  • http://timmorrison.net tim

    Mumon:
    You quote an article that says the following:
    “In the past Parsley’s church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.”
    How is that any different than candidates during EVERY election cycle going into churches (usually African-American churches) and holding what amounts to a political rally during the church service? Is there not a blatant violation of tax-exempt status there?
    Give me a break.

  • oclarki

    carissa,
    In the words of Jerry Seinfeld “We’re trying to have a society here!” I weep for the future when people elect not to communicate properly because they think capital letters are “ugly”.
    Barack Obama has been very specific that he considers himself a Christian. As such his church is about as Christian as Joel Osteen’s. They both hold meetings on Sundays, but the gospel is not preached at either.

  • JohnW

    Oclarki,
    Perhaps you could email Obama and explain to him what it means to be a Christian and why he is not one. You may be able to get him to admit that he does not conform to your definition of what it means to be a christian.

  • Oclarki

    JohnW,
    As usual your reading comprehension is lacking. I am not in a position to judge Obama’s heart. I read his interview with Christianity Today and believe that he is sincere in his faith and does indeed have a trusting faith in Jesus. My criticism of him lies in the fact that even though he is a believer, he is worshipping in a church and a denomination that is at odds with orthodox Christianity and the gospel.

  • http://www.ivchristiancenter.com Greg Marquez

    Wow, Oclarki
    I guess it’s true what they say: Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
    Greg Marquez
    goyomarquez@earthlink.net

  • Raymond V. Banner

    The person and message of Christ as represented in Biblical Christianity is based upon both essential basic doctrines and upon a lifestyle of Christian virtues that emanate from an active faith.
    There has always been heresy and apostasy. (True enough there have always been some disagreements among the best of Christian believers.) When the great essential doctrines of Christianity are twisted and abandoned and the teachings of Scripture are disputed and ridiculed, apostasy in doctrine and perversion of morals follows. The United Church of Christ (which Wright’s and Obama’s church is affiliated) is in its schools and bureaucracy probably the most apostate of all the old-line protestant denominations excepting the Unitarians. Union Theological Seminary in New York and the University of Chicago Divinity School are institutions long given over more to humanism than Christianity.
    When Scripture is no longer an authority, mankind searches for an ideology and a lifestyle that satisfies “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life”. Ideology and politics become a sort of god. We need no go back far into history to see the ideology of communism, of Nazism. Sometimes ideology emphasizes the power of a godless, ruthless state; sometimes it emphasizes certain races or classes in opposition to and desire to overpower and crush other races and classes.
    Obama has a strange mixture in his background. A Muslim father and relatives, a liberal white mother, associations with a church that is not only a member of an apostate denomination but also one affirming an ideological and racist Black Theology; also Obama has ties to leftist ideologues and has an extremely liberal voting record.
    A number of you posting on this site share much of this liberal/leftist ideology and political
    pragmatism and will probably have to be changed by something much more powerful than debate.

  • carissa

    as an obvious outsider here, i’d like to submit the humble observation that this kind of “dialogue” seems wholly unconstructive. civilization is falling apart because i don’t capitalize words in a blog comment? this is what we’re complaining about now? i’m not offended, just puzzled.
    i’m twenty-one years old and trying to figure things out. i thought more people would have insights rather than cranky, impotent remarks. no wonder more people of my generation aren’t engaging in these discussions. i’m really disappointed. at least now i know.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    tim:

    How is that any different than candidates during EVERY election cycle going into churches (usually African-American churches) and holding what amounts to a political rally during the church service?

    Endorsing a candidate is verboten. Saying George W. Bush is immoral however, is simply a statement of fact.
    carissa :
    why is THIS unorthodoxy worse than others’?
    Why, that’s obvious: Joe Carter works for Republican Party front organizations, and therefore any reason to smear a Democrat, whether true or false is a good one.
    This orthodoxy is worse, in other words, because when it comes to being a Republican, the sin of calumny isn’t so bad.
    ucfengr:
    I just wanted to show that the Iranians were using Wingut Daily’s talking points, and to their advantage.
    Contrast this with Obama who attended Trinity for most of his adult life, takes his wife and kids there, and put the pastor on his campaign team.
    Well, there’s the Hagee thing too, you know, with McCain, but the fact is, I really don’t see why anyone would have a problem with the core of what Wright said, whatever your racial origin.
    America was founded on racism; its very existence early on depended on it, as well as slavery, land theft and genocide.
    The real issue is the horrible, putrid excrescences that led to the founding of the United States, compounded with the lie that “conservative” “Christians” give that somehow these racist, violent, greedy excrescences were somehow inspired by Christianity.
    That’s the real problem for Joe Carter.
    Jeremiah Wright’s focus on the truth of the founding of the United States gives lie – or perhaps underscores the immorality – of “conservative” “Christians'” hagiography of the “Founding Fathers.”
    Better to repent of the racism, the slavery, the hate, the oppression that still exists today than to decry the religious incorrectness of Jeremiah Wright.
    Do the plank in your own eye first, IOW.
    That’s what Jesus would recommend.

  • ucfengr

    Well, there’s the Hagee thing too, you know, with McCain
    How many times as John McCain attended Hagee’s church? Has he even met the man?
    America was founded on racism; its very existence early on depended on it, as well as slavery, land theft and genocide.
    The real issue is the horrible, putrid excrescences that led to the founding of the United States, compounded with the lie that “conservative” “Christians” give that somehow these racist, violent, greedy excrescences were somehow inspired by Christianity.
    That’s the real problem for Joe Carter.
    How is it Joe’s problem that you, the Rev. Wright, and, perhaps even Barack Obama hate the USA; and by hate I mean a deep down, all consuming hate? I know we aren’t supposed to question other’s patriotism and love of country, but really. If I met someone who felt this way about the US and still claimed to love it, I would question the person’s sanity and politely suggest psychiatric help, preferably in one of those nice countries with nationalized health care, like Cuba.

  • ucfengr

    i’m twenty-one years old and trying to figure things out. i thought more people would have insights rather than cranky, impotent remarks. no wonder more people of my generation aren’t engaging in these discussions. i’m really disappointed. at least now i know.
    Might I suggest that you review Joe’s archive for some context regarding some of the comments and commenters. Sometimes the discussions here can get rather heated, but that is because for the most part, people here feel pretty strongly about the issues discussed.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr writes:
    How many times as John McCain attended Hagee’s church? Has he even met the man?
    Uh, yeah, McCain met him when he got Hagee’s endorsement.
    How is it Joe’s problem that you, the Rev. Wright, and, perhaps even Barack Obama hate the USA; and by hate I mean a deep down, all consuming hate?
    How odd. You and Joe Carter and a boatload, if not most Republicans can’t bring yourself to the simple admission that there’s been a raw deal given to African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Irish, Polish, Russian, Jewish and a whole universe of non-White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans, and somehow you project that as Rev. Wright’s, Barack Obama’s and my “hate!”
    Have you no shame? Can’t you at least admit that the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Councils, and the Council of Conservative Citizens were and are abhorrent to the ideals of the United States of America?
    Or is denouncing racism too much for you?

  • ucfengr

    Uh, yeah, McCain met him when he got Hagee’s endorsement.
    Wow, he’s met him once. Would a sincere apology due for penance, or should we send him to the Hanoi Hilton for a couple years of their special brand of recreational activities?
    Have you no shame?
    Not about things I had no involvement in.
    Can’t you at least admit that the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Councils, and the Council of Conservative Citizens were and are abhorrent to the ideals of the United States of America?
    I don’t know how old you are (really don’t care), but I am a few years younger than Senator Obama. I have never attended a segregated school. I have never seen a “colored” water fountain. I have never lived in a segregated neighborhood. I have never seen a burning cross. I doubt Senator Obama has either. Do yourself a favor. Go to an office supply store and ask them what city you are in and where they keep the calendars. Go get one. What you will find is that you aren’t in the 1950’s and you probably aren’t in Alabama or Mississippi.
    Or is denouncing racism too much for you?
    Okay, racism is bad. It’s bad whether its practiced by Whites, Blacks, or Asians. It’s especially bad when it is practiced in churches and especially when designed to fill people with a sense of despair and hopelessness or with hate, as the good Rev. Wright did.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Trinity United Church of Christ is a racist church. That should be beyond dispute. But if you disagree, substitute the word “white” for “black” and “Aryan” for “African.” Now consider how comfortable you would be with Hillary Clinton or John McCain going to such a church.
    The problem with this is that it is 100% divorced from reality. It’s kind of like someone complaining the local Rabbi spends so much time talking about the Holocaust and very little time talking about how China abusesTibetan Buddhists. America is 90% white. A ‘White Church’ is basically a church for everyone BUT blacks. A black church, though, is no different than any other ethnic group using their shared experiences to bond together. I don’t get upset when I see an “Italian American Association” but I would get upset if I saw an “Association of everyone but Italian Americans”.
    Regarding “America hating”
    When I read the “God Damm America” passage what came to mind was perhaps the first piece of literature I read in American Lit class in HS. It was Cotton Mather’s “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God”. Basically a sermon that can be summed up as “you’re a sinner, God’s itching to toss you into the pit of hell”. Of course, that sermon was given to a group of Puritans whose lives today probably would make Mother Teressa’s life look like Paris Hilton but it’s point was essentially to shake the listener out of feeling comfortable that they were good and make them realize they were amazingly unworthy when seen from the POV of an infinite entity.
    Rob V
    I have NO problem with minority groups trying to achieve political and economic equality – it is so important. But you can’t wrap that cause up in the Gospel, because the Gospel isn’t about economics or politics, it’s about the salvation of our souls. ALL our souls.
    I do agree with you BUT at the same time the Gospel is used to address the specific needs of the congregation that is using it. If you’re using the Gospel to address Nigerian farmers you will have a different audiance than if you’re addressing middle class house wives in the US or Soviet dissidents in the old USSR or the ruling class of a third world country. If the Gospel wasn’t flexible enough to address different peoples then Christianity would never have made it as a major world religion (that is an observatioon, not a judgement). Blacks have suffered for a long time in America and many turned to the Gospel for answers. Wright and people like him have a point in that it’s kind of silly to say now, after centuries, that there shouldn’t be black churches that have centered their efforts around the black community. It’s almost as absurd as saying the churches in Poland shouldn’t speak Polish because the Gospel is for non-Polish speakers as much as Poles.
    I think, though, that there is a natural limit to how far ‘ethnic centered’ churches can go. I think at the black community needed Wright’s to some degree to unite around a common source of pride. This only goes so far. Among many black seperatist types I sense a lot of insecurity, hence the ‘overcompensation’ (as in “all good ideas came from black Africans 5,000 years ago and everything was stolen from them”). The community must move on to the next level and the next level needs less racial consciousness and more “post racial consciousness”.

  • http://christianconservativegeek.blogspot.com C-C-G

    The defenders of the “black theology” seem to be forgetting one key passage in the Bible they claim to believe in:
    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
    (Galatians 3:27-29, NKJV)
    Anyone preaching that salvation is only for one group, whether that group has skin that is black, white, red, yellow, green, purple, or polka-dotted, is not preaching Christ, according to Paul.

  • Donna

    I guess it takes an apostate to know one.
    I take it you call yourself a Christian so riddle me this…
    Why is a pastor’s comments (possibly true) about racist America, where AIDs really came from (only time will tell but I am sure the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment folks said it was hogwash at one time also), is the war justified or not (umm… seems that Sudan had more to do with terrorist camps than Iraq but I digress… don’t want that peskie racist truth to bite you)… offensive…
    but yet…
    GW Bush can say Christians and Muslims worship THE SAME gOD, which mind you “Mr. Pick and Choose What I Like Bible Expositor”… is BLASPHEMY and blatantly says Christ is a liar (for He the Lord and GW Heretic Bush can not both be correct on this matter, which is the most important matter).
    Where is your anger for the honor of the Lord?
    So as you write your misguided and man centered opinion as to a misguided view of the Gospel of Christ, you yourself fail to understand what the Gospel is also and make just a grave an error. For guess what? Whether these folks on this blog or readers agree with you or Rev. Wright, as Christ said… “If you do not believe that I am He, you will DIE IN YOUR SINS”.
    Do you sleep soundly at night knowing that George Bush has said repeatedly to millions of people following a false religion, that they worship the same gOD as he does? For as the bible makes clear, whether someone believes what Rev. Wright says, or what GW Bush says, if they do not believe that Christ is who He claimed to be, they will DIE IN THEIR SINS, and God does not give credit for righteous finger wagging at someone YOU think is an apostate, while giving a pass to someone who is sending even more people to hell with a false gospel.
    Step away from the false religion called AMERICANISM and get back to the Word of God, the true Lord.

  • Donna

    BTW,
    I hope you show as much “indignation” toward the WHITE democrat candidates (Clinton’s, John Kerry, etc.) who have PIMPED all these black liberation theology churches for decades for votes.

  • Donna

    BTW,
    Quoting Sean Hannity, who is a follower of the apostate church of Rome which protects pedophiles, isn’t exactly leading credibility to this discussion. He is in no more position to attack Cone than Cone is to attack the false church of Rome for they are both apostate.
    Stick with the bible for the facts and then the Lord may open your eyes.

  • http://olympics.poetryman6969.com/ poetryman69

    Getting yourself pastored for 20 years by a radical hater shows bad judgment. Lying about it when asked by the media shows dishonesty. Now we know the real reason why you refused to wear a flag lapel pin and why your wife has never before been proud of America. If we take you at your word, you spent 20 years in the company of a man, and never once figured out that he was a virulent racist. A president of the United states cannot afford to be that obtuse. Request for presidency denied.
    –klqtzz

  • ucfengr

    Of course, that sermon was given to a group of Puritans whose lives today probably would make Mother Teressa’s life look like Paris Hilton
    Boonton, Puritans were not Puritans because they didn’t drink or smoke or have sex or make money; they did all those things. They were Puritans because they had doctrinal differences with the Church of England. They disagreed with the Reformation of the Church of England under Elizabeth I. They wanted the Church doctrine to follow the “more pure” doctrines of the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches, not the doctrine of the Roman Church, which they felt was corrupted by pagan influence.
    Quoting Sean Hannity, who is a follower of the apostate church of Rome which protects pedophiles, isn’t exactly leading credibility to this discussion.
    Is there a church that is more criticized, from both inside and out, than the Catholic Church? Is there a church that is more open about its internal doctrinal disagreements than the Catholic Church? I don’t think so. This kind of gratuitous Catholic Bashing also “isn’t exactly le[n]ding credibility to this discussion”?

  • Tim L

    “Tim L., unless I misunderstand you, there is no way to respond to this other than with outright dismissal. How anyone can argue that God is okay with abortion is beyond me.”
    Daniel Briggs,
    That is exactly my point.
    You can also refuse to accept God as somebody that supports racism! You can “murder the god” that does because it is a false god. That is the point of the remarks by James Cone

  • Rob

    “i thought more people would have insights rather than cranky, impotent remarks. no wonder more people of my generation aren’t engaging in these discussions. i’m really disappointed. at least now i know.”
    Don’t give up too easily. One arrogant crank and a few heated exchanges are not a bad trade for occasionally thoughtful discourse. Hang in there and don’t pay too much attention to others’ self-serving criticism of you. You clearly have something to add to the discussion.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Boonton, Puritans were not Puritans because they didn’t drink or smoke or have sex or make money; they did all those things. They were Puritans because they had doctrinal differences with the Church of England.
    You should have tried harder to get me, the sermon was by Jonathan Edwards, not Cotton Mather. It was also for a Calvinist Congregation and not Puritans. Memory is never a very true friend. The point, though, was that the people he was addressing were not very sinful when compared to others, they were probably quite unsinful. Nonetheless, the surmon’s purpose was ‘shock therapy’…intended to shock someone who was thinking he was pretty much ok into realizing he is not.
    Is there a church that is more criticized, from both inside and out, than the Catholic Church? Is there a church that is more open about its internal doctrinal disagreements than the Catholic Church? I don’t think so.
    So what? If the criticism is association with apostasy then the Catholic Church would be in the mix too even if they adopt the wikipedia model to doctrine. Unless, of course, Joe is Catholic which means that every other Christian Church would have the apostasy problem.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr :
    I happen to be a couple of years older than Obama.
    And as Obama said in his speech today, there are still effects of racism in American society.
    And I’ve observed it myself.
    One more thing: the (very much active and alive and racist) Council of Conservative Citizens has a website.
    Its views seem to mirror Carter’s in trying to denounce Barack Obama because of his pastor’s views.
    Funny Carter still hasn’t denounced Tony Perkins for his cavorting with David Duke.

  • http://talithakoumfiles.blogspot.com Letitia

    boonton:
    I was about to “get you” on your intentional Mather/Edwards flub. Some of us are paying attention.
    Mumon:
    I dare you to produce one shred of evidence that America was ever FOUNDED on racism. You’ll get no argument from me that America has a history of oppression based on skin color, but even a grade school understanding of US history shows that the first settlers and colonists did not come to the New World and establish a government because of how much they hated Africans.

  • http://www.cabarruscheapseats.com Justin Thibault

    So, I’m reading the comments and I see “Big Daddy Weave” and I think, “Oh, Mike Weaver reads EO“. But, it’s just some doofus who’s trying to leach off of someone else’s hard-work and success. Oh, and the leach is a liberal – you can imagine my shock then.
    For shame, lowly parasite, for shame.

  • DaveD

    Mumon:”As you can readily verify from my recent diary over at Kos”
    Oops, sorry. I thought I was having a conversation with someone sane and rational. I was wrong.
    You’re right, every black kid in jail is there because of whitey. Not his absent father, loving but no discipline mother, folks like Jackson preaching that he can’t succeede because he’s black and whitey hates him, hanging with a pack of other kids without fathers, listens to black men talk about the joys of ho’s and slinging rock for 15 hours a day etc.
    It’s all my fault. It sure is tiring oppressing all the dark skinned folk. I need a drink…
    You have consistently dodged the question. You’re a racist, a charlatan, a fraud and a moron.
    Donna: You are right that Bush is preaching false doctrine when he says Allah and the God of the Bible are the same god. I agree that Joe and other Republican Christians should man up and admit that.
    However, nearly everything you say in your opening sentence is wrong. “Why is a pastor’s comments (possibly true) about racist America”,
    Even if we accept that all the founding fathers hated colored people, that matters not one iota now. The truth is the only thing standing in the way of black youth today is inner city culture and those like Mumon and Jackson who promote and defend it. There is program after program to help their followers rise above the ghetto, yet every time someone does, they are labeled a sell out.
    “where AIDs really came from (only time will tell but I am sure the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment folks said it was hogwash at one time also)”,
    Even if AIDS was created by man, which is a stretch, the fact remains that if you don’t participate in a narrow range of very specific activities ..you don’t get AIDS. So, instead of blaming some imaginary bogey man for the problem, like Democrats always do (it’s the rich or the white, or the Republicans)let’s admit that there are consequences for our actions.
    “is the war justified or not (umm… seems that Sudan had more to do with terrorist camps than Iraq but I digress… don’t want that peskie racist truth to bite you)”
    Hindsight is 20/20. It’s a kinda famous phrase. To look back now and say Iraq wasn’t a threat is easy. When we went in, EVERY MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY in the WORLD, thought that it was. Even St Clinton, both of them. Sudan does not now, or did it ever, present a threat to America. And did you care about Sudan 10 years ago when the Muslims first started killing off Christians or did you just jump on the band wagon like most good lefties as a way to attack Republicans? Just curious.
    DD

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Letitia :
    Go back & read your Howard Zinn. The fact that the Brits were going to end the importation of slaves into the colonies was a major reason for the colonies declaring independence.

  • ucfengr

    You are right that Bush is preaching false doctrine when he says Allah and the God of the Bible are the same god. I agree that Joe and other Republican Christians should man up and admit that.
    Number one, Bush isn’t a preacher, so he is going to held to a lower standard than a minister. Number two, Bush was criticized for that. Furthermore, I reject the premise that before a Republican can criticize some noxious religious belief, he has to take responsibility for every other noxious doctrine from the Spanish Inquisition to Southern Baptist defense of slavery to Jim Crow to Bush’s kid glove treatment of Islam that he can even remotely be connected to.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    DaveD:
    Rather than respond with white racial stereotypes (showing your own racism), why not just admit the obvious?
    America has a history of racism, and its very existence was predicated on racism qua slavery and oppression of the indigenous people here.
    Then again, you prove the points that have been made about racism here.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Letitia,
    Sorry I beat you to the punch on Mather v. Edwards :) Keep paying attention, though, I’m sure I’ll make one or two more errors this year!
    You’re right that America was not founded on racism but it was integral to the Constitution which many people often use as a ‘founding date’ for the US. In the original constitution slavery was recognized and even explicitly protected from amendment for some time. Unfortunately, many people miss this and instead cite the 3/5 clause which people almost always get backwards. The slave states wanted blacks counted fully in the census so they would get more representation in Congress, the free states felt since the slave states denied blacks the vote they shouldn’t get more votes in Congress.

  • Marvin the Martian

    A summary of Mumon’s responses to everyone…
    I don’t have to address your points because you’re a racist!!!!
    A caricature of the argumentation of the modern left. Don’t address specific substantive points, and don’t forget to make sure that you label everyone with whom you disagree a racist.

  • ucfengr

    You should have tried harder to get me,
    I wasn’t trying to “get you”, I was trying to correct a common misconception about Puritans and Puritanism.
    Unfortunately, many people miss this and instead cite the 3/5 clause which people almost always get backwards. The slave states wanted blacks counted fully in the census so they would get more representation in Congress, the free states felt since the slave states denied blacks the vote they shouldn’t get more votes in Congress.
    I commend you for trying to correct a common misconception about the “3/5 clause”. It was not about expanding the power of whites over black, it was about limiting the power of the slave states vs. the free ones. I wonder if Abraham Lincoln could have won the 1860 election if it weren’t for the 3/5 clause limiting Southern states representatives in the electoral college.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    I’ve yet to seen any specific points made that weren’t caricatures of the sort of garbage one might hear from Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.
    I yield the balance of my time to Christopher Hayes:
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/hayes

    After three decades of the mainstreaming of dangerous and reactionary viewpoints, though, even the mildest bit of left-wing radicalism is deemed toxic and taboo. So while Ann Coulter can call John Edwards a faggot, Grover Norquist can say he wants to drown the government in the bathtub, and a host of imperialists can foment an illegal and pre-emptive war based on lies, Barack Obama’s pastor isn’t allowed to mention that America has been throughout its history the site and cause of much evil in this world.
    Ultimately, though, this controversy, like so many in American life, is about race. It’s telling that the issue of Wright’s views have percolated among the right-wing fringes for months, but it was only with the discovery of a video, and the images and sounds of an angry black man decrying racial oppression in the cadences of the black church that the media staged a collective freakout. The problem politically for Obama is that his campaign is built on the promise of racial transcendence and healing old wounds, and here’s his pastor picking at the scabs. Or, as a friend of mine put it, it turns out America’s black friend has a black friend.
    But it is only through the most debased and perverse logic of racial guilt by association, whereby every black politician has to denounce Louis Farrakhan, that the the political views of a candidate’s spiritual mentor should have any truck whatsoever. If Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency is derailed by a few intemperate remarks that his retiring pastor gave to a church which did not even contain the senator in its pews, it leads one to think that Wright’s skepticism about America’s treatment of black Americans and a black presidential candidate is wholly justified. And if, of all things, it is his pastor’s heated denunciation of American injustice that undoes the candidacy of an African American with a legitimate chance at the White House, any conscientious observer could be forgiven for thinking: God damn America indeed.

    Yep.

  • Chris Lutz

    Go back & read your Howard Zinn. The fact that the Brits were going to end the importation of slaves into the colonies was a major reason for the colonies declaring independence.
    And then after gaining independence they joined a government that set a fixed date for end of importing slaves?
    Section 9, Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
    Also, would you like to point out where slavery was even a reason mentioned in the Declaration of Independence which laid out the reasons for breaking with England?

  • Rob

    “And then after gaining independence they joined a government that set a fixed date for end of importing slaves?”
    Yes, but it should be noted that the slave population increased from under 700,000 in 1790 to almost 4,000,000 in 1860. Stopping importation did not keep the slave population from increasing dramatically in the period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

  • Chris Lutz

    Rob, that’s not what Mumon was arguing. Considering that in 1808 the Federal gov’t outlawed the importation of slaves and by that time only one or two states allowed unrestricted importation of slaves, most of the increase can simply be attributed to population growth. My point still stands that Mumon’s point of slavery being a significant reason for breaking from England is unlikely. Your numbers actually prove out that it was unnecessary to import more slaves. So, again, Mumon’s point seems unlikely.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Chris Lutz:
    There was a great deal of anti-slavery feeling in the US at the time; the North was the South’s best friend in this regard, as the Brits passed their law some 20 years earlier, if memory serves me.
    And the slave owners wanted another 20 years of slave importing.
    Big difference to them.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    The last word goes to Nick Kristof:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20kristof.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance.
    “The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”
    Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. “It’s not anti-white,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”
    Mr. Wright has indeed made some outrageous statements. But he should be judged as well by his actions — including a vigorous effort to address poverty, ill health, injustice and AIDS in his ministry. Mr. Wright has been frightfully wrong on many topics, but he was right on poverty, civil rights and compassion for AIDS victims.
    What should draw much more scrutiny in this campaign than any pastor’s sermons is the candidates’ positions on education, health care and poverty — and their ability to put those policies in place. Cutting off health care benefits for low-income children strikes me as much more offensive than any inflammatory sermon.

    Frankly, I’ve seen a lot more hate from conservatives, especially McCain’s “spiritual adviser” Rod Parsely and John Hagee than from Wright.
    Chris Lutz:
    The Brits passed their law about 20 years earlier.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    It should be noted that banning slave importation is not necessarily an antislavery policy. Banning imports would increase the value of rich southerners who already owned a large inventory of slaves. Since they owned the offspring of their slaves, they could maintain and pass down an upper class status.

  • ucfengr

    The Brits passed their law about 20 years earlier.
    The Brits passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807 which abolished the slave trade within the British Empire. Note, this was the same time that the US banned the slave trade, not 20 years earlier. Slavery itself was still legal in the British Empire until 1833 when Slavery Abolition Act was passed.
    Frankly, I’ve seen a lot more hate from conservatives, especially McCain’s “spiritual adviser” Rod Parsely and John Hagee than from Wright.
    Well duh. For you to have seen more hate from Wright you would have to accept the premise that there is something wrong with blacks hating whites or with anybody hating the USA. You obviously don’t. BTW–I don’t see where McCain called Parsley “my (McCain’s) spiritual adviser”, I see where he called him “a spiritual adviser”, while acknowledging him on a podium after meeting him for the first, and apparently only time. Question for you, if you really see no problem with what Wright said from the pulpit, why are so desperately trying equate McCain’s one time meetings with Hagee and Parsley with Obama’s nearly 20 year close association with Wright.
    It should be noted that banning slave importation is not necessarily an antislavery policy.
    Wilberforce would disagree with you, Boonton.

  • Chris Lutz

    The Brits passed their law about 20 years earlier.
    No the British Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 and was written about the same time as the American law. The American law only took effect in 1808 due to the Constitutional restriction. And England didn’t abolish slavery until 1833. So, no, slavery was not the reason the colonies broke from England.
    It should be noted that banning slave importation is not necessarily an antislavery policy.
    I didn’t say it was. Although there was significant opposition to slavery. However, again that goes to show that it is extremely unlikely that slavery was a major or even a minor consideration in breaking from England. And until Mumon can offer more than an offhand reference to some author and poor recollections, I stand by my position.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr:
    I stand corrected. However, it is indisputable that many African Americans fought with the British, because they were promised their liberty…
    And it is also indisputable that the economy of the United States for decades before and after the Revolution was dependent on slavery for its survival, and when slavery was finally abolished, at bloody cost, it was replaced with Jim Crow in the South and Dickensian working conditions in the North.
    Ugly.
    Calling Parsley “a” spiritual adviser rather than “my” spiritual is adviser is splitting hairs. I doubt McCain would call Louis Farrakhan “a spiritual adviser,” but he has no problem calling Parsely, who has advocated genocide a spiritual adviser.
    McCain has been courting people whose hate makes Jeremiah Wright look like…well, if Kristof and Martin Marty are to be believed, a Christian in the best sense of the word.

  • ucfengr

    And it is also indisputable that the economy of the United States for decades before and after the Revolution was dependent on slavery for its survival,
    I disagree, in fact I would argue that slavery was more of a hindrance to the US economy than a boon. Look at the economic statistics of the North vs. the South from 1820 to 1860 for a good picture of how slavery stagnated economic growth in the South.
    Calling Parsley “a” spiritual adviser rather than “my” spiritual is adviser is splitting hairs.
    No it’s not, it is correcting the lie you are trying to spread that McCain has a relationship with Parsley similar to the one Obama has with Wright. Again I ask, if Obama’s relationship with Wright is no big deal, why do you feel the need to lie about McCain’s with Parsley (and Hagee) to compensate?
    I doubt McCain would call Louis Farrakhan “a spiritual adviser,”
    McCain is one of the few Republicans I could actually see saying something nice about a Farrakhan.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    ucfengr:
    Fact: McCain avidly sought Hagee’s endorsement.
    Fact: McCain has been endorsed by genocidal maniac Rod Parsely, and yes, McCain has sought support from Parsely’s congregation.
    Fact: Wright’s right when he decries the evils of racism in America, an evil which bears fruit even today.
    Fact: According to non-African American theologian Martin Marty, a member of Wright’s congregation, “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”
    Fact: there simply is no comparison between McCain’s “spiritual advisers” and Wright.
    McCain’s are bigots and racists.
    I’ve yet to see something that Wright said that’s patently racist, or has advocated genocide, and frankly any attempt to either make an equivalence or to distract from the issue of Hagee and Parseley’s hate is a lie itself, disingenuous, and repugnant.

  • smmtheory

    Feeling affirmed… feeling affirmed… hmmm, yep that’s why everybody should be going to church, so they can FEEL affirmed. That means he got the Reverend Jeremiah Wright stamp of approval, right?

  • Marvin the Martian

    Fact: Obama has been endorsed by the racist, bigoted, Jew hating Louis Farrakhan.
    Fact: Obama has been endorsed by the militant radical Black Panther organization.
    I do agree that there is no comparison between McCain’s endorsements by fringe christians and Obama’s relationship with the fringe christian Wright. Obama has said that Wright has had a profound impact on his life and thought. Get back to us when you can find a similar statement from McCain regarding the profound influence either Hagee or Parsley has had on his life.
    Fact: Obama has some dubious endorsement of his own.
    Fact: Wright is, at best, extremely prejudiced against whites and Jews, whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
    Frankly, any attempt to either make an equivalence or to distract from the issue of Farrakhan’s, the Black Panthers, and Wrights hate is a lie itself, disingenuous, and repugnant.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Wow the sheets are out today!
    Marvin the Martian:
    Fact: Obama repudiated Farakhan. McCain sought out endorsements from Hagee and Parsely.
    Fact: You can’t find any “Black Panther” organization on Google. There’s a so-called “New” Black Panther Party, which has no relationship to the now-defunct Black Panther party. The “New” Party has been rejected too by Barack Obama.
    Which leads me to suspect you’re smoking something…or getting your talking points from Michael Sean Hannity Savage…
    Oh, but wait, speaking of bigots…it turns out FRC Vice President Peter Sprigg – I think Joe Carter knows the guy – wants to ethnically cleanse America of gay people.
    Really, why don’t you folks just admit what you are & be done with it?

  • Marvin the Martian

    I’m shocked you label me a racist. Utterly stunned in fact.
    McCain on the Hagee endorsement…
    “Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not,”
    BTW you bigot, your little attempt to divert the attention away from the FACT that Wright had a profound influence on Obama as contrasted with mere endorsements by Hagee, et al for McCain is duly noted.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    Heh. You think that McCain’s weasel words would wash away his preening for Hagee in any way?
    Regarding Wright’s influence on Obama, what’s the problem?
    As Kristof quotes Martin Marty…

    “The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”

    Really, you just want to find reasons to hate Obama, and I suspect it has more to do with race than anything else.
    Disgusting.
    But frankly our side won the Civil War, and yours didn’t so maybe you’d like to find some other country in which to go…

  • Marvin the Martian

    Bigot,
    My dislike of Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin. That you keep making such vacuous assertions without evidence indicates that you are merely projecting your own bigoted views onto me.
    I dislike Obama because he is a radical, and I do mean radical, supporter of infanticide. I could stomach his neo-marxist, big government views, I could even deal with his questionable relationship with Wright. His zealous pursuit of protecting infanticide is where I draw the line.
    His talk of racial equality and desire to help the poor and the oppressed rings very hollow given that he has shown no desire to protect the most oppressed and helpless amongst us.

  • http://mumonno.blogpsot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    Sounds to me like you’re one of the “kill women who want to terminate their pregnancies” thugs.
    You know, the kind that equates humans with zygotes.
    Now that‘s “radical,” and immoral, and ultimately a disgusting devaluation of human life.
    But obviously the Civil War thing you don’t like either, because that pretty much defined personhood legally as born persons.
    Too bad. We won the Civil War, and the anti-life side (hardly “pro-life”!) did not.

  • Marvin the Martian

    You’re right. This is just a “zygote” not worthy of protection.
    Your moral compass is so corrupt it truly defies all description.

  • Marvin the Martian
  • Marvin the Martian
  • ucfengr

    It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that mumon can’t tell the difference between facts and opinions; after all, he thinks that racism and genocide are synonyms for whatever it is he doesn’t like. I imagine it does make the dinner table rather interesting, for example mumon might say “I am not going to eat these racist brussels sprouts” or “I refuse to eat this genocidal cauliflower”. Must be terribly hard on his wife, though.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    ucfengr
    No it’s not, it is correcting the lie you are trying to spread that McCain has a relationship with Parsley similar to the one Obama has with Wright. Again I ask, if Obama’s relationship with Wright is no big deal, why do you feel the need to lie about McCain’s with Parsley (and Hagee) to compensate?
    Actually you’ve got it upside down. Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad. Since Obama appears to be a serious Christian, it would be dishonest to pretend to deny the man who he says lead him to Christ. Such a ‘stab in the back’ would actually be more of a Clintonian tactic.
    McCain, on the other hand, has no serious relationship that I know of with these characters. They are not family members, they never did anything for him and he probably has no idea who they really are. Seeking and embracing their endorsements is troubling because it is purely political.
    On the later post, some have criticized Obama for bringing up his grandmother and her sometimes racist views despite being a good person. I think the illustration, though, was telling. If your grandfather was Archie Bunker, I don’t think you need to denounce him and assert you hate him in order to earn national office. If you don’t know Archie Bunker from Adam, though, I’d be troubled if you sought him out as a political authority.
    I disagree, in fact I would argue that slavery was more of a hindrance to the US economy than a boon. Look at the economic statistics of the North vs. the South from 1820 to 1860 for a good picture of how slavery stagnated economic growth in the South.
    The south, though, didn’t exactly explode economically when slavery was abolished. I’ve seen it asserted by “neo-confederates” that slavery was dying economically ‘anyway’ and therefore the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery and was unnecessary in some way. I don’t see that as being true, though. If slavery was an economic drag then why did slave owners own slaves? Obviously they felt they were getting more in economic value than they were spending in maintaining them. If they weren’t, even in the deep south, they were free to legally free them and let them feed themselves.
    Whether or not slavery was a hinderance would also depend on how you measure it. Your case is probably better if you incorporate the slaves welfare into the equation. A slavery defender from 1860, though, would assert that only the welfare of non-whites should count. I would suspect if you did an economic analysis of slavery by only looking at non-slaves in the south you’d find it ‘paid off’ for them. This would hold even though the majority of whites did not own slaves and those that did seemed to make themselves a sort of ‘ruling class’.
    Slavery might have been economically incompatitable with an industrial economy but I think if slavery was never challenged all that would have happened is that poor whites in the south would have moved into the industrial revolution while blacks were kept as slaves in agriculture. BTW, maybe a year ago one of my in-laws came by with this DVD. It was a documentary with an alternate history of the South winning the civil War. While it had some corny ‘commercials’ for an America with modern day slavery, it was actually kind of interesting. You might have heard of it or seen it yourself. I forget its title, though.

  • Chris Lutz

    I stand corrected. However, it is indisputable that many African Americans fought with the British, because they were promised their liberty…
    Any many fought on the American side as well. And you know, there were a number of blacks that fought for the South in the Civil War.
    And it is also indisputable that the economy of the United States for decades before and after the Revolution was dependent on slavery for its survival, and when slavery was finally abolished, at bloody cost, it was replaced with Jim Crow in the South and Dickensian working conditions in the North.
    The cotton gin was the only thing that saved the slave economy of the South. It wasn’t economical otherwise. The North meanwhile was quickly industrializing through a mercantilism policy. So, no, slavery wasn’t necessary for the economic survival of the country.
    Mumon, really, read some non-leftist history.

  • ucfengr

    Actually you’ve got it upside down.
    No, I really don’t, but I do complement you on the time, effort, and mental gymnastics you must have put yourself through to convince yourself otherwise.
    Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad.
    You might have a case if Wright had started preaching the hate-America/hate-whitey stuff, like last Tuesday; clearly that is not the case. He’s started preaching it long before Obama joined up. You may as well argue that Frank Nitti had an obligation to Al Capone (2 other Chicago boys) because Al started some soup kitchens during the Depression.
    The south, though, didn’t exactly explode economically when slavery was abolished. I’ve seen it asserted by “neo-confederates” that slavery was dying economically ‘anyway’
    That might have had a little something do with the Civil War and the near complete destruction of Southern infrastructure that it caused. This is really outside the scope of this discussion, so I don’t want to go into any depth, but if you are interested in the Civil War and some of the economic aspects of it I suggest you read McPhearson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”. The first section is about the economies of the antebellum US and it’s impact on the two sections (North and South).

  • Tim L
  • ucfengr

    Actually you’ve got it upside down. Because Obama has known Wright for so long he does have an obligation to show some measure of respect for the man’s good works while rejecting the bad.
    I doubt you would be very accepting of this argument if it were McCain who had been a long-time member of Hagee’s or Parlsey’s church, instead of Obama.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    That might have had a little something do with the Civil War and the near complete destruction of Southern infrastructure that it caused. This is really outside the scope of this discussion, so I don’t want to go into any depth, but if you are interested in the Civil War and some of the economic aspects of it I suggest you read McPhearson’s “Battle Cry of Freedom”. The first section is about the economies of the antebellum US and it’s impact on the two sections (North and South).
    I’ll try to keep the book in mind. But I have to ask first what infrastructure? An agricultural economy does not have as much infrastructure as an industrial one. Second, economic growth, ironicially, should be stronger after a massive amount of destruction. Capital has more opportunities to invest.
    (Why, then, do we simply not generate economic growth by randomly nuking ourselves every few years? Because it’s better to have a high degree of wealth with small increases in it than a very low degree with high increases. I’d rather be Bill Gates getting 3% COLA’s than a burger flipper with 10% yearly raises).
    Look at Japan and Germany after WWII. They rapidly industrialized and quickly recovered from the war. The south was plauged by slow economic growth until today when the economy has shifted to a service based one.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I doubt you would be very accepting of this argument if it were McCain who had been a long-time member of Hagee’s or Parlsey’s church, instead of Obama.
    Perhaps, we are all human and bias influences us but we should try to be consistent.
    Obama, though, has very specifically explained what he does and doesn’t like about Wright and why Wright is wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong, but McCain has done nothing to tell us where he differs from Hagee. Last I heard he said something like he doesn’t agree with him “on everything”. Catholics, then, might take comfort in knowing maybe McCain doesn’t agree they are cultists worshipping “The Great Whore” or whatever.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Chris Lutz:
    Read some William Blake and get back to me before praising the Cotton Gin…
    Marvin the Martian:
    Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
    As such, it’s your lack of a moral compass, and many others like you that have brought us Iraq, Katrina, the blindness towards the threat of 9/11 before it happened, the deterioration of our military and economic security, and a host of other ills.
    Also, cut the BS about the “Militant Black Panther Party.” Obama didn’t seek out their endorsement, so by continuing to find a tu quoque, you’re only proving what a hateful, spiteful, small racist you are.

  • ucfengr

    I’ll try to keep the book in mind. But I have to ask first what infrastructure? An agricultural economy does not have as much infrastructure as an industrial one.
    The South did have a railroad system that they used to get their cotton to port for transport North or overseas. This was one of the main targets of Sherman’s March to the Sea. They also had some industrial capacity, for example the Tredegar Iron Works in Richomnd, which the war pretty much destroyed.
    Second, economic growth, ironicially, should be stronger after a massive amount of destruction. Capital has more opportunities to invest.
    Well, much of Southern capital was tied up in slaves and land, so the South didn’t have capital to invest. The North had lots of capital, but the opportunities for investment were better in the North and West. Remember, during the Civil War, the plan for the East to West railroad was finalized. Also, one of the consequences of the War was creation of alternate sources of cotton (specifically Egypt), because Southern cotton couldn’t get to port due initially to a Southern embargo designed to encourage European participation in the war, and later to the Northern blockade. So after the War, Europe didn’t need Southern cotton, and the North had better investment opportunities elsewhere.
    Obama, though, has very specifically explained what he does and doesn’t like about Wright and why Wright is wrong.
    What is your premise here, that Wright has been preaching like this for at least as long as Obama has been a member or that Wright just started preaching the hate-America/hate-whitey shtick, last Tuesday? If Wright has been preaching this stuff for decades, than your excuse for Obama rings pretty hollow, after all he sat through his rants for a long time before he had had a chance to develop a close relationship Wright. If the latter, then you really need to offer up some evidence, because that is not what is out there. Also I really don’t accept your assertion that Obama has been specific. In reality he’s been quite the equivocator, trying to compare Wright’s decades of hate to Geraldine Ferraro’s one comment about Obama’s race and its impact on his Presidential campaign and his grandmother’s fear of an aggressive black panhandler.
    but McCain has done nothing to tell us where he differs from Hagee. Last I heard he said something like he doesn’t agree with him “on everything”. Catholics, then, might take comfort in knowing maybe McCain doesn’t agree they are cultists worshipping “The Great Whore” or whatever.
    I just don’t equate a one time meeting with a 20 year relationship and apparently nobody else does either, judging by McCain’s poll numbers. This Wright thing must really have Obama supporters scared if they have to try to make this connection. I really surprised you guys haven’t pointed out that both McCain and Hagee are named John, it’s about as strong a connection as the Wright-Hagee one.

  • Marvin the Martian

    Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
    I get it already. You think it’s OK to slaughter unborn babies that are as human as you and I. Have fun in hell. I am sure you will find lots of company.
    As such, it’s your lack of a moral compass, and many others like you that have brought us Iraq, Katrina, the blindness towards the threat of 9/11 before it happened, the deterioration of our military and economic security, and a host of other ills.
    Your moonbattery truly knows no bounds.
    And calling me a racist simply becuase I don’t agree with your myopic view of things, you only are demonstrating what a hateful, spiteful, intolerant, bigoted liberal you are.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    All you have are insults, when it’s all said and done.
    Nothin’ else.
    Please, for the sake of all Americans who cherish their liberty, and ought to be rewarded for their labors, find some other country in which to reside.
    It’s clear you and your folks detest what America truly stands for: liberty.

  • ucfengr

    Now that’s “radical,” and immoral, and ultimately a disgusting devaluation of human life.
    Something else we can add to to the list of terms mumon’s thinks are synonyms for things he doesn’t like.

  • Marvin the Martian

    All you have are insults, when it’s all said and done.
    I guess the irony of this coming from someone who laces practically every post with some sort of “you’re a racist” blast or “you’re responsible for every evil under the sun” is lost on you.
    Please, for the sake of all Americans who cherish their liberty, and ought to be rewarded for their labors, find some other country in which to reside.
    You first.
    It’s clear you and your folks detest what America truly stands for: liberty.
    Kind of like how you come here and try to shut up anyone with whom you disagree with “you’re a racist, bigot, homophobe” or whatever you say to try and cram you morally twisted, political correctness bile down our throats.

  • http://talithakoumfiles.blogspot.com Letitia

    Mumon:
    I’ve been blogging other stuff and came back to see to your response, and I see that others have already taken care of that for me!
    This string has meandered. Nevertheless, Mumon said:
    Your equating of fetuses and zygotes with born people denigrates experiences, denigrates actions people do with each other, and denigrates what people and beings really are.
    So tell us, what people “really are.” The longer you talk, the sooner you should realize that the subjugation and oppression of one race by another for convenience (aka economic gain) is not much different than the elimination of unborn people for convenience as well. It’s just another form of slavery.
    To quote one famous philosopher, Guinan: “thousands of disposable people…”

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    …you come here and try to shut up anyone with whom you disagree …

    DENNIS: Listen — strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
    is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
    derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
    aquatic ceremony.
    ARTHUR: Be quiet!
    DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power
    just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
    ARTHUR: Shut up!
    DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an empereror just
    because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d
    put me away!
    ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
    DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
    ARTHUR: Shut up!
    DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
    ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
    DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
    eh? That’s what I’m on about — did you see him repressing me,
    you saw it didn’t you?

    Letitia :
    So tell us, what people “really are.”
    Well…http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2005/05/who-are-you.html

    Who Are You?
    My name is Peter.
    If you went to Nicaragua, you’d be called Pedro. Are Pedro and Peter one person or two?
    One, because I am only who I am.
    Are you a name?
    No, of course not.
    Then who are you?
    I am a man.
    You mean you are not a woman?
    No. I mean that I am a man.
    But you are only a man because you are not a woman…

    When you stop confusing what you are or what people are or what zygotes are or what fetuses are with your idea of what they are (or even my idea of what they are), then you may begin to respect life.

  • Marvin the Martian

    When you stop confusing what you are or what people are or what zygotes are or what fetuses are with your idea of what they are (or even my idea of what they are), then you may begin to respect life.
    Your repugnant verbal sophistry aside, you fail to address the specific question.
    Is this life worthy of respect and protection? There is no middle ground. There is no “my idea” or “your idea” of what this life is.

  • http://mumonno.blogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian:
    Hardly sophistry, rather I’d say, your attempts to evade the unpleasant consequences of what I wrote would qualify as sophistry.
    Your pictures of an aborted fetus are of course an attempt to subvert actual consideration of the situation.
    Are the lives of fetuses worthy of respect and protection?
    They do not exist in a vacuum. In fact they do not exist as independent entities, but as interdependent entities.
    If that is not understood, then you cannot be truly respecting them, but rather you are enamored with your idea of “See the nasty aborted fetus!!!”
    I’m pretty certain you want to keep attachment to your “See the nasty aborted fetus!!!”
    It’s a form of greed.
    Maybe not sinful to you, but it is certainly part and parcel of the poison of conservatism.

  • Marvin the Martian

    Are the lives of fetuses worthy of respect and protection?
    They do not exist in a vacuum. In fact they do not exist as independent entities, but as interdependent entities.

    Translated…
    They are not worthy of respect or protection. It is OK to slaughter the baby because the woman had sex with a man that she deemed worthy of sleeping with, but not worthy of being a parent. Or the rubber broke. Or I can’t afford to raise a child. Or I am not mentally ready to be a parent. Or whatever selfish excuse you can imagine. Just don’t let that damn baby get in the way of me living my life the way I see fit!!!
    It’s a form of greed.
    Kind of like the abortion industry.

  • http://mumonno.boogspot.com Mumon

    Marvin the Martian :
    So you are no better nor worse than the evils you claim you fight against.
    Your point is again???

  • Raymond V. Banner

    To Marvin the Martian:
    Thank you for your spirited and persistent defense of the humanity of the pre-born. I observed and learned many years ago that liberal/leftists who harp so much on “human rights” are usually not so fond of rights when the rights of another interferes with their own personal desires and actions. Their elevation of personal sexual practice above the humanity of the pre-born is an example. I have also learned that the leftists protestors for peace can often be very violent and that in fact they are often not really against war as long as revolutionaries or leftists are winning the war.

  • http://gogogolemjhuyjmh.com/ dessRoacted

    http://gogogolemjhuyjmh.com/ gogogolemjhuyjmh
    gogogolemjhuyjmh
    [url=http://gogogolemjhuyjmh.com/]gogogolemjhuyjmh[/url]

  • R. Jenkins

    While the article specifically mentions Trinity, I would like to add that the AMEC (African Methodist Episcopal Church) supports Rev Jeremiah Wright and the heretical Black liberation doctrine he espouses.

  • Jeramiah

    Ok, Why can’t people of certain races take charge…meaning; Instead of continuing to blame other races for their continued history of poor judgment and lack of self discipline, to try looking for leaders of their own race to guide them to self improvement.
    Quit pointing fingers, pull your pants up, speak proper English, then you will get the respect and support you believe should be handed to you on a silver platter.
    Take some responsibility for your own actions, instead of blaming others.
    By not doing so, is keeping racism alive and strong.
    BTW, when a certain person G-Damned America, isn’t that taking the Lord’s name in vain? (Good Christian huh)

  • http://www.memorystickspro.com Apeddrest

    Hey guys,
    I found a great deal on http://www.MemorySticksPro.com for 2gb 4gb 8gb and 16gb memory sticks.
    I purchased one 2-3 days back and already received it so the deal seems sound. I am bargain hunter and I
    looked all over ebay, amazon, buy.com, etc. but this was the cheapest I found so thought I’d share with
    everyone as my first post on this forum ever.
    Hope it helps! Give me some reps!
    Looking to be a contributing member here!
    Regards
    Matt