okie
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.

Cycloptichorn

I knew that post I went ahead with in regard to the Imperial Wizard statement would be a zinger. However, simply look at the church's own website, I think it is a highly political "church," and by virtue of that simple fact, we then must look at the politics. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but this organization is based on highly charged racial prejudices. This fact is just inescapable. I hate to see somebody like Obama have to face the music, but that is part of the price he pays for being a part of this and running for president.

Read the website, cyclops.

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

"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:50 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.

Cycloptichorn

I knew that post I went ahead with in regard to the Imperial Wizard statement would be a zinger. However, simply look at the church's own website, I think it is a highly political "church," and by virtue of that simple fact, we then must look at the politics. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but this organization is based on highly charged racial prejudices. This fact is just inescapable. I hate to see somebody like Obama have to face the music, but that is part of the price he pays for being a part of this and running for president.

Read the website, cyclops.

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

"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology."


What music is he facing, exactly?

I need you to be a little more specific, b/c I don't really see anything behind what you are getting at. Yes, there are black churches and leaders who feel that AA's have gotten the short end of the stick in America for a long time. So what?

Let's look at that list of talking points on the website:

Quote:
Talking Points

Dr. Wright's talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):

• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.

• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

• I use the word "systematized" because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone's book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.

• These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects - not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined "others" as.

• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like "others" defining themselves.

• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.

• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, "Difference does not mean deficience." It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.

• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.


What exactly do you find objectionable, here?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:53 pm
Well imagine if you wrote a book titled "White Power and White Theology," and then had a church based on the book, how far would you get with that?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:56 pm
Another church besides the all the numerous already existing? Well, at least in the USA that could work, I think.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:58 pm
okie wrote:
Well imagine if you wrote a book titled "White Power and White Theology," and then had a church based on the book, how far would you get with that?


Good thing that neither Obama nor Rev. Wright wrote such a book.

I also think that if whites were a minority who had a long history of systematic oppression against them in a certain society, such things would be more acceptable. And you should admit that this would be true, as it is common sense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 12:59 pm
Whites don't need that and never did. You've never had to establish yourself as a race. It's been built-in since Plymouth Rock. At least, on this continent.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 01:02 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.


I made no such comparison.

It sounds like you missed my point. I'm not sure my restating it would add clarity.


No, I got the point. I just don't agree that it is a valid one.

Let's say that McCain was a member of a church which preached intolerance towards Gays and Muslims. Now, this is quite easy to believe, as these are not uncommon things for many American churches to preach against. Should I say that McCain would also be intolerant towards these people, that we can predict his character, based not on his professed statements on the subject - of which there are extensive documentation - but upon his association? I don't think that would be either valid or accurate data upon which to make predictions or even look at general trends.


I don't know whether you should or shouldn't, but I can tell you it would raise a valid question in my mind. If I was a member of a church that preached such intolerance, I wouldn't be a member of that church for long. If I stayed a member for 20 years of preaching such intolerance, yes, I think a rebuttable inference can be made about the character of one who would willfully and voluntarily continue to associate with that church and its intolerant views for that length of time.


And I'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy on the left with this issue, so I don't have to point it out any clearer for you.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 01:13 pm
Where's this intolerance that you speak of?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 01:16 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that comparing a church to the KKK is a little beyond the pale. There is no such comparison in this case.


I made no such comparison.

It sounds like you missed my point. I'm not sure my restating it would add clarity.


No, I got the point. I just don't agree that it is a valid one.

Let's say that McCain was a member of a church which preached intolerance towards Gays and Muslims. Now, this is quite easy to believe, as these are not uncommon things for many American churches to preach against. Should I say that McCain would also be intolerant towards these people, that we can predict his character, based not on his professed statements on the subject - of which there are extensive documentation - but upon his association? I don't think that would be either valid or accurate data upon which to make predictions or even look at general trends.


I don't know whether you should or shouldn't, but I can tell you it would raise a valid question in my mind. If I was a member of a church that preached such intolerance, I wouldn't be a member of that church for long. If I stayed a member for 20 years of preaching such intolerance, yes, I think a rebuttable inference can be made about the character of one who would willfully and voluntarily continue to associate with that church and its intolerant views for that length of time.


And I'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy on the left with this issue, so I don't have to point it out any clearer for you.


You presume that the church spends all, or even the majority, of its' time making statements to that effect. There exists no evidence whatsoever that Wright or the TUCC was anything like that. In fact, out of dozens of videos covering hundreds of hours of sermons, we have what, a handful of statements that people disagree with?

If your church made comments you didn't like once in a while, I don't see why anyone would fault you for not quitting. You posit a purely black and white situation, when in fact the reality is far more complicated and complex. Obama was a community organizer and a huge part of his community attended that church; perhaps he stayed for reasons not connected with the Rev. at all?

If you think the Dems are hypocrites on this issue, and you are emulating their behavior, what does that make you? Or do you think that they were correct all those years to rail against the religious right, and your party's association with them?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 01:16 pm
Regardless of you all going on and on about this; it seems the rest of us have moved on and Obama has remained steady and even has come out ahead of Hillary in the polls a little.

I think most people know black people have had and continue to have worse times than white people in the US so and their churches has always been one place where they have always had a free place to congregate to talk about it. This was really so during the civil rights movement and it seems this church has been existance a long time and probably a spill
over from that era.

http://www.historynow.org/06_2006/historian4.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1896-1954)

Quote:
As the center of community life, Black churches held a leadership role in the Civil Rights Movement. Their history as a focal point for the Black community and as a link between the Black and White worlds made them natural for this purpose. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was but one of many notable Black ministers involved in the movement. Ralph David Abernathy, Bernard Lee, Fred Shuttlesworth, and C.T. Vivian are among the many notable minister-activists.[1] They were especially important during the later years of the movement in the 1950s and 1960s.




Having said that Obama has refuted the most extreme views expressed by his former pastor and according to the polls most people have accepted it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 01:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Not at all. You are resting your point on a rather huge fallacy - namely the proposition that there are specific, knowable one-to-one correspondences between the present & past associations of people, and all of their possible specific future actions. This, of course, is patent nonsense, and I am surprised to find that you apparently believe it.

We can, with some rough degree of accuracy, forecast the central tendencies of leaders and politicians, based on their past words, actions and associations. However, even that is, at best an approximate process for guessing the average character of future actions: it offers nothing at all with respect to forecasting specific actions in response to specific situations.

You are insisting that, unless one can defensibly predict a specific adverse consequence of some past thought, action or association, one cannot claim any inference whatever about his future behavior. This flies in the face of basic scientific principles involving even relatively simple dynamic systems --- not to mention common sense.


So, you're saying that, even though we can't predict whether his association with Wright will have any negative effects upon his ability to lead the country at all, he should still be attacked for that association - because it might?

I'm sorry to say that I don't find this to be a persuasive argument against his candidacy. It breaks down upon the lightest of examination, into an extremely nebulous criticism. There's been no reason whatsoever to doubt that Obama is patriotic, and that he loves his country; to insinuate that his association with Wright brings this issue into doubt, is something of a stretch, and an indefensible one, which relies on the classic Republican trope of 'anti-Americanism,' that wonderful smear, that classic attack, which can be used to sow indefinable doubts about a candidate who merely happens to be Liberal.

As I've said before - it's the Muslim smear, with a new face on it. Now, nobody believes that he is a Muslim - but he might be, some say, and who knows what decisions he will make as prez due to it! This fog of doubt about an honorable candidate is exactly the point of the smears; to try and make him seem as dirty as the other candidates in the race, when he isn't.

Cycloptichorn


Nonsense ! I am saying that Obama's association with Wright cannot be the basis for a specific forecast of ANY action he might take in the future with respect to ANY issue or challenge. Further, I am saying that no one can with certainty forecast ANYONE's future behavior in any circumstance whatever. Future behavior is not knowable with certainty under any conditions. Thus one's inability to use known information about a candidate's present or past associations, actions or beliefs to acurately forcast his future behavior in any specific circumstance implies NOTHING AT ALL regarding the likely accuracy of any forecast of the central tendency of his furure behavior.

Armed with extensive information about a person's professed beliefs, actions and associations, one can indeed reliably forecast the relative likelihood of different average modes of behavior or choices under future circumstances. However, that does not mean that one so informed can reliably predict ANY SPECIFIC future action.

You have demanded that your critics demonstrate the ability to make specific forecasts or associations as a precondition to any claim that a known past action or association might be an indicator of anything in the future. That is absurd on the face of it.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:08 pm
Quote:
Armed with extensive information about a person's professed beliefs, actions and associations, one can indeed reliably forecast the relative likelihood of different average modes of behavior or choices under future circumstances. However, that does not mean that one so informed can reliably predict ANY SPECIFIC future action.


OK under what circumstances can one forcast the relative likelihood of what average modes of behavior or choices? What kind of circumstances and what is the average modes of behavior the peson would most likely have during those circumstances?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:11 pm
Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing
By Ed Koch

Barack Obama's speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.

Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.

Many of Rev. Wright's incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Khadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright's sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy. He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a "dirty word" and "racist country." He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing "Zionism." His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government "wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people."

Senator Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are "inexcusable," but stated, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Before we discuss his grandmother, let's examine the impact of Rev. Wright's statements on the Senator's two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical "South Pacific," to wit, "You have to be taught to hate and fear...You've got to be carefully taught." Few dispute that Rev. Wright's sermons are filled with hate.
Why didn't Senator Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister's rants.

Now to Obama's grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70's to the mid-90's when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama's grandmother. Indeed, Reverend Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a November 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun-Times, he said, "'We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.' Then Jackson told the audience, 'There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved....After all we have been through,' he said. 'Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.'"

Isn't that exactly what Obama's grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson's, with Wright's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today's vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling.
For shame.

What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a President of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America - foreign and domestic -- and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.

What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric. Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn't do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright's hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.

It is also disturbing to me that Obama's wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn't she feel proud to be an American? When she and the Senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn't she feel proud of her country?

Senator Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn't think so, and certainly not of those who weren't already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy. We will soon know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:11 pm
I'll buy that!~! Past actions does not foretell future actions; that's a given isn't it? Each circumstance is different from past ones; how one tries to determine how anybody but themselvves will react in different situations is a waste of time. We can only go by what any individual says, and make our own conclusions as to how they will perform in the future; there are no guarantees.

Our trust and how that individual has stood up to past challenges are how we measure ethical standards based on our own subjective judgements.

Most of us learn by our own mistakes; some people never learn.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:12 pm
Is a person who buys tickets, supports, and attends Lakers games for 20 years going to have a problem saying he's not a Lakers fan?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:12 pm
eoe wrote:
Where's this intolerance that you speak of?


I was referring to the intolerance that Cyclops was speaking of in the post I was responding to, eoe.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:14 pm
Those who would make their decisions based on his 20-year relationship with his pastor probably doesn't understand much of anything else.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:20 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
eoe wrote:
Where's this intolerance that you speak of?


I was referring to the intolerance that Cyclops was speaking of in the post I was responding to, eoe.


Thanks for clarifying.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Past actions does not foretell future actions; that's a given isn't it?


<snip>

cicerone imposter wrote:
how that individual has stood up to past challenges


c.i., which point are you trying to make? that past actions matter or that past actions don't matter?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 02:30 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If your church made comments you didn't like once in a while, I don't see why anyone would fault you for not quitting.


I have quit a church based on one particular sermon, as a matter of fact. It wasn't just the one sermon alone, but it was a bit of a cumulative effect, and it was clear to me that I did not want to continue to be associated with that particular church or the pastor any longer. I had attended that church for about two years at that point. But then again I wasn't attending because I thought it would facilitate my political career.

Quote:
If you think the Dems are hypocrites on this issue, and you are emulating their behavior, what does that make you? Or do you think that they were correct all those years to rail against the religious right, and your party's association with them?

Cycloptichorn


The fact that Dems are hypocrites on this issue makes me nothing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 691
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 07:30:28