No, I'm not ready to nail them down, because I don't see any evidence he took those particular beliefs from Cone, or preached them.

Are you ready to nail them down on the basis of this excerpt from Cone?

But again, you don't see any Christian value in not disowning the man, simply a political one?

As for choosing a black church, I think your point is a little snarky. He chose that church partly because it helped him do his community work better. He's admitted so much in his book.

quote:

But again, you don't see any Christian value in not disowning the man, simply a political one?

Without claiming to know what Wright was really preaching every week or what he really believed, and without knowing what their relationship was like, how can I find Christian value in disowning him or not? I don't know what you're looking for here, that it was nice not to criticize him more harshly?

quote:

As for choosing a black church, I think your point is a little snarky.

It was meant to be snarky, I guess. I saw somewhere as I read the posts from the past few days that you really referred to him as post-racial, or something to that affect. I thought it was hilarious, and cant believe you really think that's true, especially after his speech last week. Am I misunderstanding what you meant by it? What is postracial (or whatever other phrase you would like to use) supposed to mean?

See if you can find that and I'll try to explain it to you. But I don't remember saying that.

I think you're referring to my point that he campaigned as a racial uniter, never really delving into traditional racial or identity politics, and has been forced by this to address the older divisions.

I'd be happy to stand by that.

As for the idea of "post-racial" I guess it'd depend what you mean. If it means that he's of a different generation -- my generation -- that didn't grow up with the same racial hang-ups (legitimate or otherwise) as your generation did, I think there's something to that as well.

But this isn't a post-racial society, as if race no longer matters, or won't matter if we elect a multi-racial candidate. So I think the term is more projection than description.

And I must admit, I'm a bit surprised by how taken you are with this Wright business.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
And I must admit, I'm a bit surprised by how taken you are with this Wright business.

I think that the different weight we place on theology and religion is a big reason for that.

That is probably true.

Let me ask you this: do you expect Wright's views to be the same as Cone's, a man who grew up in segregated Arkansas in the 50s?

(Wright grew up in Pennsylvania and was not poor.)

They don't seem to be the same. He doesn't preach violence. I still haven't seen anything vicious towards whites in general. Have you?

Here's some Cone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF2RuD4124

I haven't watched it. Bit busy. Take a look.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Here's some Cone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF2RuD4124

I haven't watched it. Bit busy. Take a look.

no streaming video at work.

heck, on a basic level my opinion of the Cone-Wright relationship is this: Black Liberation Theology is what Cone says it is, Wright is a self-ascribed follower of Cone's Black Liberation Theology.

I find NOWHERE that he denounces any piece of it. In fact, he seems to be intent on defending it against its critics. If Wright believes something other than Cone, he can say that. But the quote from Cone is an important aspect of Cone's theology, and Wright aligns himself as strongly as possible with that theology. I find nowhere that he adds to or takes away from Cone's work, but he does reference Cone almost every time he is asked about or explains his theology.

How is it logical to assume that Wright strongly disagrees with Cone? Isnt that a bigger jump than the one I am making?

My point about not disowning him is that he took the more Christian route. He said he disowns the message, not the man. Isn't that the Christian thing to do? There is certainly no shortage of people telling him to cut the reverend loose.

You think it wouldve been smarter, politically, to disown him? I really really dont.

Was he un-Christian in his treatment of Farrakhan?

As for Cone, the piece of the quote that seems to be bothering you so much is where he says "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

He says this means the white churches that preach segregation and Jim Crow, not white people in general. (Please don't make me defend this stuff. I think it's all God nonsense, of course, and this is particularly nutty stuff.)

Regardless, the quote seems like a call to violence, or at least saying that God isn't God if he's not on the side of oppressed black people. And God's love means smiting their oppressors "here and now by any means at their disposal."

And yet I have to say I don't find this to be particularly out of ordinary for a black church in the 60s. Outdated now, yes. Stunning, no.

And I don't see any evidence of Wright having preached this, or called his clergy to violence. In fact, what we do have is Wright specifically preaching non-violence.

So no, I don't think that's a huge leap to say that this church isn't about violence. Just the usual "God's on our side" horseshit, passed through decades of black resentment. It's ridiculous and understandable at the same time.

And I'm still wondering why I should care about this vis a vis Obama.

I can see why you'd note it, why it'd be a story, why it'd work as political theater.

But I can't for the life of me understand why, when faced with two wars, health care, global warming, the economy, etc., etc., we're still talking the founder of black liberation theology, a man who virtually no one had heard of until three weeks ago.

It's really not important to me.

What is does tell me is that it's amazing how little the two races do talk with each other. We go through this same cycle every ten years or so. Something happens and stunned white America goes, "Do they really think that way?"

Well, yeah.

I think it would have been smarter politically to speak out against him more forcefully than he did. And I think he may have to later on.

I'm not stunned that "they think that way", I am stunned that people are defending it publicly. There have always been people that have preached seperatism, black nationalism, "us against them", the government is out to get us, white people all hate us, we hate all white people, the man is here to keep us down, whatever, but those people have always been marginalized in politics.

Conversely, Obama's supporters are simultaneously claiming that Wright's speech was perfectly normal and that Obama never heard him talk like that. Politically, it's bull$hit, and the fact that he stood by Wright for 20 years shows a lack of real leadership in his community, IMO (no, I'm not kidding). In reality, it gives cause for real concern that Obama agrees with him on some level. Not that he is a Black Panther, but that he sees the America that Wright sees. Mrs. Obama has given reason for mild suspicion, Wright has shouted it from the pulpit.

Every 4 years we are reminded that Dems and Reps see America very differently. I dont think any element of Wright's view belongs in the White House.

"the government is out to get us, white people all hate us"

Isn't that somewhat true in Arkansas in the 50s and 60s?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
"the government is out to get us, white people all hate us"

Isn't that somewhat true in Arkansas in the 50s and 60s?

Sure. Every one of those things couldve been true or good ideas at some point.

"I dont think any element of Wright's view belongs in the White House."

Wow. You really think Wright's views are going to be in the White House? Really? I thought if there was one thing we could agree on it was that we didn't have worry about that. The guy has campaigned on the exact opposite message of all of those things you listed. I don't think there's any reason to have this fear. To think so is to think the man to be a complete fraud.

I find it hard to believe that you buy that, as it truly is guilt by association. You've taken quotes from a Southern theologian written in 1969 and tied them to a possible Obama White House in 2009. I think that's unfair to say the least.

But I guess it does come down to our views of religion. I lived -- even my early years -- taking everything the alcoholic man in the funny hat said with not just a grain, but a whole Morton's container of salt.

Most Catholics listen to the Pope on premarital sex or gays and think "Yeah, yeah. Thanks very much." And we go our own way and do our own thing.

Judging from our other conversations you adhere pretty closely to the Biblical version, and if you've got a pastor who adheres to it as well, I guess that means you take him pretty seriously. And you're seeing Obama through that lense, while I'm seeing him through mine.

Tupa, you should look this over, too:

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

You asked, "Was Obama ignorant of what Black Liberation Theology is?"

The more I'm looking into this, the more it's clear that there's more to black liberation theology than what Cone wrote in 1969, and that perhaps the quote you posted from the WSJ is the extent of your knowledge of it as well. It didn't start then, and it has evolved since then, and is not merely defined by the Cone book. The movement is not in the same place it was where it was when Cone preached it.

The same way Mormonism isn't in the same place it was in 1969.

Also, looking at the quotes without the WSJ ellipses gives a different reading of them as well. Sounds like a black preacher in the South in the 60s.

How up on this black liberation theology stuff are you?

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
"the government is out to get us, white people all hate us"

Isn't that somewhat true in Arkansas in the 50s and 60s?

48 to 58 years ago. Are you kidding me? The excuses have to end one day. One day it has to be enough. Sorry but a large part of that population did not experence those days.

So who is to blame for the gangster culture sweeping young people today. Is Arkansas responsible for the fact that many young black males promote volence withing their own communities, sell drugs within their own communities, leave their children? So when does it end? Why is the Rev traveling overseas instead of getting into these neighborhoods and reaching out to these lost souls. What he is afraid his nice car will get jacked.

Nav, really. You're not following this.

We're talking about when the man said these things. He wrote them in Arkansas in the late 60s. Which is why...

Oh, nevermind.