I also found it distasteful to turn the tables to white on black racism as well. That is what I think is so cowardly about his speech. I cannot understand why that is not obvious to everyone. Obama had a chance to be the "change" he says he is working for. His speech says to me he is about more of the same.
Admittedly, I am not pro-Obama, but I am certainly capable of congratulations where congratulations are due.The point of it all is the theology. If Obama were to have said what NR suggests, what then of his 20 year immersion in black-liberation theology?

What is even more telling is that a dolt like me and other clippers can make the same observations as someone like Victor Davis Han...

I also found it distasteful to turn the tables to white on black racism as well. That is what I think is so cowardly about his speech. I cannot understand why that is not obvious to everyone. Obama had a chance to be the "change" he says he is working for. His speech says to me he is about more of the same.
Admittedly, I am not pro-Obama, but I am certainly capable of congratulations where congratulations are due.The point of it all is the theology. If Obama were to have said what NR suggests, what then of his 20 year immersion in black-liberation theology?

What is even more telling is that a dolt like me and other clippers can make the same observations as someone like Victor Davis Hanson. We have made every point in his article here at CM.

I wonder if Victor Davis Hanson is a closet clipper.

I do not know the world in which you live, but apparently it is one where eyes and reason are of little value.

Ratilfar:
All this talk about Black Liberation Theology as a bad thing, but no
one has been able to point to one thing that makes it, you know, bad!
No proof whatsoever, and when pressed on it, the slip and slide.

The racism part.

The part about God destroying the white enemy.

The part about destroying all Gods that identify with other races.

The part about black superiority.

The systemization of Christian Theology as Afro-centric

The support for terrorism, violence, and separation and any means possible to destroy the white enemy.

The refusal to "accep...

I do not know the world in which you live, but apparently it is one where eyes and reason are of little value.

Ratilfar:
All this talk about Black Liberation Theology as a bad thing, but no
one has been able to point to one thing that makes it, you know, bad!
No proof whatsoever, and when pressed on it, the slip and slide.

The racism part.

The part about God destroying the white enemy.

The part about destroying all Gods that identify with other races.

The part about black superiority.

The systemization of Christian Theology as Afro-centric

The support for terrorism, violence, and separation and any means possible to destroy the white enemy.

The refusal to "accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of black theology" - James Cohn.

"Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." - James Cohn

Other than that and more alarming BS , nothing is wrong with Black Liberation Theology.

Funny thing is who John Cone described these terms:

In the second sense, "black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism."[25] Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression."[26] Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for liberation.

On Christ as Black:

One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Christology is his view that Jesus was (is) black: "The 'raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes -...

read more»

Funny thing is who John Cone described these terms:

In the second sense, "black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to "one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism."[25] Blackness is thus "an ontological symbol for all people who participate in the liberation of man from oppression."[26] Seen in this light, "blackness" can be attributed to people who do not have black skin but who do work for liberation.

On Christ as Black:

One of the more controversial aspects of Cone's Christology is his view that Jesus was (is) black: "The 'raceless' American Christ has a light skin, wavy brown hair, and sometimes - wonder of wonders - blue eyes. For whites to find him with big lips and kinky hair is as offensive as it was for the Pharisees to find him partying with tax-collectors. But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black, baby, with all of the features which are so detestable to white society" (emphasis in original).[32]

This last one I understand, as I grew up in a society with both representations of Jesus, well three to be exact.

Salvation for Cone primarily has to do with earthly reality, not heavenly hopes. "To see the salvation of God is to see this people [i.e., the blacks] rise up against their oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now and not tomorrow."[36] Hence, though Cone often speaks of Jesus as the Liberator, in practical terms he emphasizes the human work of self-liberation among blacks and downplays divine help.

Even his call for revolution seems consitant with his time and place (circa 1960). Again, I have not found anything of what you have mentioned in the often looped and repeated clips of Wright's sermons. But this is a mere example of the barest of research. Now that...

Salvation for Cone primarily has to do with earthly reality, not heavenly hopes. "To see the salvation of God is to see this people [i.e., the blacks] rise up against their oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now and not tomorrow."[36] Hence, though Cone often speaks of Jesus as the Liberator, in practical terms he emphasizes the human work of self-liberation among blacks and downplays divine help.

Even his call for revolution seems consitant with his time and place (circa 1960). Again, I have not found anything of what you have mentioned in the often looped and repeated clips of Wright's sermons. But this is a mere example of the barest of research. Now that I think about it, I probably should by Cone's book and see for myself what he was taling about.

Nor does all Black theology seems to be confined to Cone's foundational definitions:

Black theologian Anthony Evans directly challenges Cone's methodology by arguing that the black experience must be seen as "real but not revelatory, important but not inspired."[52] Black writer Tom Skinner agrees and argues that "like any theology, black theology must have a frame of reference There are some black theologians who seek to make their frame of reference purely the black experience, but this assumes the black experience is absolutely moral and absolutely just, and that is not the case. There must be a moral frame of reference through which the black experience can be judged."[53] That ...

Nor does all Black theology seems to be confined to Cone's foundational definitions:

Black theologian Anthony Evans directly challenges Cone's methodology by arguing that the black experience must be seen as "real but not revelatory, important but not inspired."[52] Black writer Tom Skinner agrees and argues that "like any theology, black theology must have a frame of reference There are some black theologians who seek to make their frame of reference purely the black experience, but this assumes the black experience is absolutely moral and absolutely just, and that is not the case. There must be a moral frame of reference through which the black experience can be judged."[53] That frame of reference must be Scripture.

Black liberation theologian DeOtis Roberts (b. 1927), though committed to liberation, agrees with this and insists that black theology must speak of "reconciliation that brings black men together and of reconciliation that brings black and white men together."[56] Roberts says "it is my belief that true freedom overcomes estrangement and heals the brokenness between peoples."[57] However, Roberts argues, "reconciliation can take place only between equals. It cannot coexist with a situation of Whites over Blacks."[58]

Crucial weight must also be assigned to the neoteric character of black theology. It is a new and fledgling discipline. Obviously where one marks its beginning determines its theological age, but here a knotty problem arises. To identify its founder -- should it be Marcus Garvey, Joseph Washington, James cone, Albert Cleage, etc.? -- commits one to a particular definition of black theology. we are presupposing the view that black theology involves a self-conscious effort to define one's position in determined opposition to its complement, an alleged white theology . That is to say, the precondition for undertaking a ...

Crucial weight must also be assigned to the neoteric character of black theology. It is a new and fledgling discipline. Obviously where one marks its beginning determines its theological age, but here a knotty problem arises. To identify its founder -- should it be Marcus Garvey, Joseph Washington, James cone, Albert Cleage, etc.? -- commits one to a particular definition of black theology. we are presupposing the view that black theology involves a self-conscious effort to define one's position in determined opposition to its complement, an alleged white theology . That is to say, the precondition for undertaking a black theology is the prior conclusion that an unacknowledged white theology exists. We would suggest that the clearest indicator of this self-conclusion factor is the presence of the adjective "black" in the title or subtitle. If this principle is accepted the birth of black theology must be placed within the past decade. For teaching purposes, I have adopted 1964, the publication date of Black Religion,4 as an expedient starting point.

If anything (so far) is that Black Theology is has to goals: a) to liberate blacks from their existing condition (racism,inequality,injustice etc), b) to make an theological affirmation through a specific racial/cultural experience. I find the first laudable and the second realistic and understandable (from my own background seen how Catholicism has adapted to the necessities of the Americas post Conquest).

Again, you make statements with little proof and expansive oversimplification. But like I said before nothing I have seen, heard or read about (so far) lends itself to the negative vision you propose. On the contrary, the more I read about it, the more I can see its...

If anything (so far) is that Black Theology is has to goals: a) to liberate blacks from their existing condition (racism,inequality,injustice etc), b) to make an theological affirmation through a specific racial/cultural experience. I find the first laudable and the second realistic and understandable (from my own background seen how Catholicism has adapted to the necessities of the Americas post Conquest).

Again, you make statements with little proof and expansive oversimplification. But like I said before nothing I have seen, heard or read about (so far) lends itself to the negative vision you propose. On the contrary, the more I read about it, the more I can see its positive side and its value. Which in turn makes what Obama said even more illuminating.

Define civilize manner. Would I had said it the way Wright said it? Probably not, but I would have said it none the less.

As for your second point, where do you get that? Its that solely because she was the First Lady, does that elevate to a realm all her own? Honestly the two are not comparable. Racism is systemic in the U.S. (it is in fact systemic through out the Americas). Not the same as beign villified because somebody doesn't like your husband.

Just because Whites do not have to endure one type of hurt does not mean they are immune to hurt or understanding hurt.

Ok, let me put this way. Everybody is thirsty or hungry, but how many have been so thirsty that they would d...

Define civilize manner. Would I had said it the way Wright said it? Probably not, but I would have said it none the less.

As for your second point, where do you get that? Its that solely because she was the First Lady, does that elevate to a realm all her own? Honestly the two are not comparable. Racism is systemic in the U.S. (it is in fact systemic through out the Americas). Not the same as beign villified because somebody doesn't like your husband.

Just because Whites do not have to endure one type of hurt does not mean they are immune to hurt or understanding hurt.

Ok, let me put this way. Everybody is thirsty or hungry, but how many have been so thirsty that they would drink salt water or so hungry they would eat grass? Not many, I haven't and I can't claim to know that. It is beyond my experience. I can sympathize, but my understanding is limited by my experience or lack there off. Pointing that out is not racist or bigoted. I didn't know what driving while Black until I found myself in that situation. No amount of tv sitcoms would instruct me in the same way that one experience did. I never beign in a war zone, I have seen people killed by gunfire, but its not the same. I can not claim to know what somebody living in downtown Baghdad feels like. It is beyond my experience.

As well as using the pulpit illegally with respect to tax status!

You know what, your right on this particular point, I wonder why nobody has called him out on that?

Not to mention that Obama is not exactly the living representative of poor abused people of whatever race.

Because he is a succesful person today? Is that why? Does his past experiences count for nothing or for that matter his current experiences.

In this case it would mean that Hillary's name should not have come up. It is not Hillary's fault that she is White and it is not Hillary's fault that Blacks have been mistreated.

Why not? Nobody is blaming Hillary for anything, just pointing out the obvious. You seem to have missed that point entirely.

And unless it has become a requirement for being President that you are
Black, there is no way in Hell he should have even been discussing the
issue!

It is a requirement to know the candidates experiences. Voters identify with their candidates in all manner of ways, by location, religion, ethnicity and yes, race. For this audience it is important to know that th...

In this case it would mean that Hillary's name should not have come up. It is not Hillary's fault that she is White and it is not Hillary's fault that Blacks have been mistreated.

Why not? Nobody is blaming Hillary for anything, just pointing out the obvious. You seem to have missed that point entirely.

And unless it has become a requirement for being President that you are
Black, there is no way in Hell he should have even been discussing the
issue!

It is a requirement to know the candidates experiences. Voters identify with their candidates in all manner of ways, by location, religion, ethnicity and yes, race. For this audience it is important to know that this candidate understands their circumtances. Now, Wright should have done this away from the Church. If he wanted to campaing for Obama, he should have done it on his own time.

As for the vileness directed at the Clinton's, who fault is that? Wrights, Obama? What does that have to do with the issue of race and systemic racism in the country. The Rev. wasn't talking about husband cheating on their wives, or how the press parade that one dress around. Its about specific life experiences shared by a community and understanding those experiences. Now if we where talking about say job descrimination, that would be a point in which lets say Obama and Clinton could compare as they are representative of groups (or can be) which have suffered such discrimnation in hiring practices and salary caps.

Theatrics? This is not Catholic mass! Its Big-Tent/Mega-Church/Revival Evangelical/Baptist gathering. Its big, its loud, its a show (the large gospel choir in the back should clue you in).

As for "bowing down", nobody said that either. Look at the examples that I gave. There simply somethings that are beyond ones experience. Your a man, I am a man, can we ever know the pain/joy of child birth.

Again...NO!

And that informs who we are as individuals as well as a society. Speaking about race does not make one a racist. If for example someone would speak of the Potato Famine in loud and angry tones, should I call him a bigot because he says that those that are not Irish can not understand it...

Theatrics? This is not Catholic mass! Its Big-Tent/Mega-Church/Revival Evangelical/Baptist gathering. Its big, its loud, its a show (the large gospel choir in the back should clue you in).

As for "bowing down", nobody said that either. Look at the examples that I gave. There simply somethings that are beyond ones experience. Your a man, I am a man, can we ever know the pain/joy of child birth.

Again...NO!

And that informs who we are as individuals as well as a society. Speaking about race does not make one a racist. If for example someone would speak of the Potato Famine in loud and angry tones, should I call him a bigot because he says that those that are not Irish can not understand it. NO! They can't. Its not the race, its the H-I-S-T-O-R-Y!


Obviously his delivery scares the heck out of you. And singling specific candidates from the pulpit was wrong, but c'mon!