Desert, can you find me part of a Wright sermon where he preaches violence?

I just showed you one where he specifically preaches non-violence. Since you're so convinced that he did preach violence, what are you basing this on?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Desert, can you find me part of a Wright sermon where he preaches violence?

I just showed you one where he specifically preaches non-violence. Since you're so convinced that he did preach violence, what are you basing this on?

Preaches violence? I never said that. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT!!!!!!!!

Go damn you're a liar. You're last name Clinton, because you have a fooking career that will go right down the tubes. Fast.

Go ahead, show me, Heck.

Sure, I'll show you:

quote:

But again, there's no evidence that Wright believes this particular theory. Quite the contrary, he didn't preach violence at all.

That's me. Here's your response:

"He didn't??? What sermons did you attend? You have NO idea what he did or did not preach, aspouse to, or preach about, so stop with the pretensiousness okay?"

Isn't that you doubting (with lots of question marks) that the man didn't preach violence?

Alendor also said he preached genocide against white people. I'm waiting for someone to show me an except from a speech that preaches either A) violence, or B) genocide against white people.

quote:

You're last name Clinton, because you have a fooking career that will go right down the tubes.

And what does that mean? Are you okay?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Let me ask you guys this question:

Are there any Catholics in here? I was raised Catholic. Perhaps there are a few others.

What do you guys think of the head of a church, or Pope, who associated with -- and promoted -- people who not only facilitated the sexual abuse and rape of hundreds of children, but engaged in a decades-long cover up of those crimes?

Did any of you get up and walk out of that church the way you insisted that Barack Obama do when his pastor said bad things about America?

I'm Catholic, heck, and pretty darn Catholic to boot. Thanks for asking, though, as usual, I think you're more interested in making your point than in the answer to your question. Regardless, I'll give it to you and hope you'll actually think about it.

First, I don't know what the Pope knew and what exactly he did about it so I can't comment intelligently on your allegation. If that's public knowledge, I'd be interested in seeing it, certainly.

But in a lot of ways, it really does not matter to me, as a fervent, practicing Catholic. Why?

Because I do my best to model my life and beliefs after Jesus Christ and follow His and his Church's teachings to the best of my ability.

Love. Faith. Hope. Humility. Compassion. Service. Charity.

Those things are what matter most to me, above all else, and should matter most to any Catholic.

The crimes committed by individual members of my Church are horrific and worthy of punishment. The sins they committed even more so. All those who were victimized deserve sympathy and compassion and recompense, from individuals and the Church.

But I don't for one second believe or allow that what those individuals did tarnishes the Church itself. The Church is far bigger -- and better -- than those individuals, even the Pope.

And I have total faith that God will deal justly and appropriately with all those who committed those evil acts, even the Pope.

Finally, to answer your last question, I would never leave my Church for the crimes committed by some in its employ. I feel my duty as a Catholic is quite the opposite of leaving my Church; since there are some who have violated Church teachings and damaged the Church's reputation then it's my responsibility to help fix that damage. It's my responsibility to be a better Catholic, to show the world what our TRUE nature is.

For there are -- and always have been -- FAR more good things done by the Church and in its name than there have been bad ones.

Sounds good to me.

As for the Popes, after Cardinal Law's gross negligence was uncovered, John Paul brought Law to the Vatican. No criminal or civil charges could then be brought against him. And he received no reprimand from the church.

As for Ratzinger, he, among other things, urged the church to delay and stall any legal proceedings that were close to the statute of limitations so that they wouldn't have to settle the claims with the victims.

As for what you wrote, I'm fine with that. I'm just wondering if anyone who claims to be stunned that Obama didn't leave his church over Wright's statements ever considered leaving theirs over the sexual abuse scandal.

No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed a self-defense. But to think that these cases were mostly fraudulent and this whole scandal was much ado about nothing you'd really have to have your head in the sand.

Steve, judging by your comments on this you really don't seem to get how widespread this was, or have any idea how many children were involved.

Nevermind.

Yeah, when you're arguing that the real issue is how many of these people who claimed to be molested by priests were actually phonies, and suggesting that's really an important part of the conversation, it's just a waste of time continuing on that line. And that the it's not the reality of what happened, but my anti-religious zealotry speaking...

So yes, nevermind.

Heck, that quote:

"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."

I read in a newspaper. I assumed it was taken out of context, so I looked it all up. Wright references Cone's books of '69 and '70 as the source of his theology in every case I can find him discussing it: on his website, in interviews, in statements for other organizations, etc. That quote is on the inside flap of the cover of Cone's '69 book that "systematized" Black Theology at the library at the University by my house. Cone reitterated and strengthened his tone in recent years in books and speeches with Cornell West. Yet Wright continues to serve on the board of the organization established for Cone's theology and reference Cone as the founder of his theology. Black Liberation Theology is what Cone says it is. If you believe something else, you call it something else. If you dont believe in predestination, you dont call yourself a Calvinist and say that Calvinism is at the core of your church. You describe what it is that you DO believe.

Am I just ignorant of the black experience in America, or is it crazy to base your sermons on a theology that is "for us and against white people"? I'm not looking for your answer of "I dont care what he said, I only care about the political fallout" because I just read 3 pages of posts of you arguing with people about what he said. You seem very intent on making sure no one puts words in his mouth or paints him as a bad dude. Well, take a look at all the available facts and tell me what you think about Wright. And tell me what you think about his relationship to Obama. Was Obama ignorant of what Black Liberation Theology is? Did he not care? Did he agree? Was his realtionship to Wright and his church purely a political move?

Your point about the Catholic Church really is pretty weak. One the one hand, it has almost nothing to do with the faith and beliefs of the church. It is a terrible scandal that revealed the terrribly bad side of many human leaders. But no one was preaching sexual abuse from the pulpit. No one's faith in God was based on the sexual purity of the priests or the honesty and justice of the Papacy (as far as I know). On the other hand, Wright's cuckoo ideas were his beliefs, the things he was basing his teaching on. It affected what he said every Sunday and what he taught his parishoners to believe. I'm not saying that he failed to do good or teach anything good, but his craziness was fundamental to everything he did, according to him. Abusing young boys is certainly not a fundamental part of Catholic dogma (please reserve jokes for a different thread).

quote:

Wright references Cone's books of '69 and '70 as the source of his theology in every case I can find him discussing it:

That's kind of terrifying.
And definitely removes Obama's ignorance of it (Wright's theology) from the equation.

I wasn't suggesting they were analogous, or that they were preaching the wonders of sexual abuse from the pulpit. That wasn't the point. If it were, yes, it'd be a weak one.

But this is sort of laughable: "It is a terrible scandal that revealed the terrribly bad side of many human leaders." No, it's a terrible scandal because it revealed something very much unique to the Catholic Church and the way it does business. If this were simply a human failing, or even a religious one, we'd see it in all churches. Instead, this scandal has been confined to one particular church. It doesn't say something about the human condition; it says something about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Would you not agree?

quote:

It doesn't say something about the human condition; it says something about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Would you not agree?

It says something about the human condition when placed in a particular situation. (No marriage/mate is not in the natural order of things).
Those kinds of acts are committed in prisons too. So I wouldn't argue that it is exclusive to the Catholic church. Unless you're only talking about churches.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
I wasn't suggesting they were analogous, or that they were preaching the wonders of sexual abuse from the pulpit. That wasn't the point. If it were, yes, it'd be a weak one.

But this is sort of laughable: "It is a terrible scandal that revealed the terrribly bad side of many human leaders." No, it's a terrible scandal because it revealed something very much unique to the Catholic Church and the way it does business. If this were simply a human failing, or even a religious one, we'd see it in all churches. Instead, this scandal has been confined to one particular church. It doesn't say something about the human condition; it says something about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Would you not agree?

Sure. I didnt mean to imply that it was a lesson on humanity, I meant specific humans. But the heirarchy of the Catholic church is quite different from the theology being taught on Sundays.

What was your point?

As for Wright, I've seen this Cone excerpt over and over again. What I've been asking people is to show me an example where Wright preached anything like this. I haven't been able to find anything. I can't even find anything other than critiques of white racism, some poor political reasoning, some general religious kookiness, all mixed in with some generic Christian messages and speeches typical of most black churches.

Saying the Wright bases his teaching on Cone is not the same thing to say that Wright believes everything Cone says.

Let's say this: if someone could show me a Wright speech where Cone is preaching anything close to death to white people, I'd have a lot more questions than I do now.

I still wouldn't worry about Obama buying it, but at least then his choice of churches would be a bit more suspect.

As of now, for someone working in the black community, and especially one that was choosing a church partly for political reasons, his choice of church doesn't bother me.

I also wanted to ask you if, as a Christian, you appreciate Obama's unwillingness to disown the man away once he became a political liability.

quote:

As of now, for someone working in the black community, and especially one that was choosing a church partly for political reasons, his choice of church doesn't bother me.

If it was partly political, why would he choose a black church? Isnt he postracial or something?

quote:

I also wanted to ask you if, as a Christian, you appreciate Obama's unwillingness to disown the man away once he became a political liability.

I think not disowning him was the best political move available to him. He cant afford to lose the black vote, and he cant afford to discredit his own judgment when he is trumpeting it as one of his best credentials. Whether or not he shouldve disowned him would depend on his actual relationship with Wright and with Wright's actual beliefs (among other things), two things you dont seem ready to nail down.

Look, I was raised Catholic. My point was that you could make a case that being a member of a specific parish community, say Boston or Los Angeles, where the people who were in charge of the organization you attended and gave money to every Sunday were guilty of horrible crimes. Of gross negligence. (I know I don't need to remind you.) And because of the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church, wouldn't that make you question whether or not this church was the proper representative of Christ's message on earth? These people?

That's not to say you would abandon Catholicism. But would you not contemplate leaving such a church? Especially since so few of the people responsible were removed, or even disciplined?

Of course, many did make that decision. And personally, I find the moral corruption we saw in the sex abuse scandal to be a bit more important than anything Reverend Wright said. So I asked if any Cathlics felt the same way. That was my point.

Perhaps you've heard of this, but the old Irish thing to do was called the "copper collection." That's where you throw pennies in the collection basket to express your displeasure with the church. I'm sure there was some of that as well. I know my family stopped giving money, because they didn't want it going to pay settlements and legal fees for abusers, which is where millions and millions of it went.