SubscribeWhites Are Anti-Christ - Obama Christianity?
From A Black Theology Of Liberation, by (Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor’s mentor) James H. Cone, pp v - 8 (in the 1995 paperback edition):
A Black Theology Of Liberation
James H. Cone
Preface to the 1970 Edition
The reader is entitled to know what to expect in this book. It is my contention that Christianity is essentially a religion of liberation. The function of theology is that of analyzing the meaning of that liberation for the oppressed so they can know that their struggle for political, social, and economic justice is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any message that is not related to the liberation of the poor in a society is not Christ’s message. Any theology that is indifferent to the theme of liberation is not Christian theology.
In a society where persons are oppressed because they are black, Christian theology must become black theology, a theology that is unreservedly identified with the goals of the oppressed and seeks to interpret the divine character of their struggle for liberation. “Black theology” is a phrase that is particularly appropriate for contemporary America because of its symbolic power to convey both what whites mean by oppression and what blacks mean by liberation. However, I am convinced that the patterns of meaning centered in the idea of black theology are by no means restricted to the American scene, for blackness symbolizes oppression and liberation in any society.
It will be evident, therefore, that this book is written primarily for the black community, not for whites. Whites may read it and to some degree render an intellectual analysis of it, but an authentic understanding is dependent on the blackness of their existence in the world. There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: “How can we become black?” I hope that if enough whites begin to ask this question, this country will no longer be divided on the basis of color. But until then, it is the task of the Christian theologian to do theology in the light of the concreteness of human oppression as expressed in color, and to interpret for the oppressed the meaning of God’s liberation in their community…
PART I
A BLACK THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION
The Content of Theology Liberation as the Content of Theology
Christian theology is a theology of liberation. It is a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ. This means that its sole reason for existence is to put into ordered speech the meaning of God’s activity in the world, so that the community of the oppressed will recognize that its inner thrust for liberation is not only consistent with the gospel but is the gospel of Jesus Christ. There can be no Christian theology that is not identified unreservedly with those who are humiliated and abused. In fact, theology ceases to be a theology of the gospel when it fails to arise out of the community of the oppressed. For it is impossible to speak of the God of Israelite history, who is the God revealed in Jesus Christ, without recognizing that God is the God of and for those who labor and are over laden.
The perspective and direction of this study are already made clear. The reader is entitled to know at the outset what is considered to be important. My definition of theology and the assumptions on which it is based are to be tested by the working out of a theology which can then be judged in terms of its consistency with a communitarian view of the ultimate. We begin now by exploring some preliminary considerations in my definition.
The definition of theology as the discipline that seeks to analyze The Content of Theology the nature of the Christian faith in the light of the oppressed arises chiefly from biblical tradition itself.
(1) Though it may not be entirely clear why God elected Israel to be God’s people, one point is evident. The election is inseparable from the event of the exodus:
You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples . . . [Exodus 19:4-5a].
Certainly this means, among other things, that God’s call of this people is related to its oppressed condition and to God’s own liberating activity already seen in the exodus. You have seen what I did! By delivering this people from Egyptian bondage and inaugurating the covenant on the basis of that historical event, God is revealed as the God of the oppressed, involved in their history, liberating them from human bondage.
(2) Later stages of Israelite history also show that God is particularly concerned about the oppressed within the community of Israel. The rise of Old Testament prophecy is due primarily to the lack of justice within that community. The prophets of Israel are prophets of social justice, reminding the people that Yahweh is the author of justice. It is important to note in this connection that the righteousness of God is not an abstract quality in the being of God, as with Greek philosophy. It is rather God’s active involvement in history, making right what human beings have made wrong. The consistent theme in Israelite prophecy is Yahweh’s concern for the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in society. Yahweh, according to Hebrew prophecy, will not tolerate injustice against the poor; God will vindicate the poor. Again, God is revealed as the God of liberation for the oppressed.
(3) In the New Testament, the theme of liberation is reaffirmed by Jesus himself. The conflict with Satan and the powers of this world, the condemnation of the rich, the insistence that the kingdom of God is for the poor, and the locating of his ministry among the poor—these and other features of the career of Jesus show that his work was directed to the oppressed for the purpose of their liberation. To suggest that he was speaking of a “spiritual” liberation fails to take seriously Jesus’ thoroughly Hebrew view of human nature. Entering into the kingdom of God means that Jesus himself becomes the ultimate loyalty of humankind, for he is the kingdom. This view of existence in the world has far-reaching implications for economic, political, and social institutions. They can no longer have ultimate claim on human life; human beings are liberated and thus free to rebel against all powers that threaten human life. That is what Jesus had in mind when he said:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord [Luke 4:18-19].
In view of the biblical emphasis on liberation, it seems not only appropriate but necessary to define the Christian community as the community of the oppressed which joins Jesus Christ in his fight for the liberation of humankind. The task of theology, then, is to explicate the meaning of God’s liberating activity so that those who labor under enslaving powers will see that the forces of liberation are the very activity of God. Christian theology is never just a rational study of the being of God. Rather it is a study of God’s liberating activity in the world, God’s activity in behalf of the oppressed.
If the history of Israel and the New Testament description of the historical Jesus reveal that God is a God who is identified with Israel because it is an oppressed community, the resurrection of Jesus means that all oppressed peoples become his people. Herein lies the universal note implied in the gospel message of Jesus. The resurrection-event means that God’s liberating work is not only for the house of Israel but for all who are enslaved by principalities and powers. The resurrection conveys hope in God. Nor is this the “hope” that promises a reward in heaven in order to ease the pain of injustice on earth. Rather it is hope which focuses on the future in order to make us refuse to tolerate present inequities. To see the future of God, as revealed in the resurrection of Jesus, is to see also The Content of Theology the contradiction of any earthly injustice with existence in Jesus Christ. That is why Camilo Torres was right when he described revolutionary action as “a Christian, a priestly struggle.”‘
The task of Christian theology, then, is to analyze the meaning of hope in God in such a way that the oppressed community of a given society will risk all for earthly freedom, a freedom made possible in the resurrection of Jesus. The language of theology challenges societal structures because it is inseparable from the suffering community.
Theology can never be neutral or fail to take sides on issues related to the plight of the oppressed. For this reason it can never engage in conversation about the nature of God without confronting those elements of human existence which threaten anyone’s existence as a person. Whatever theology says about God and the world must arise out of its sole reason for existence as a discipline: to assist the oppressed in their liberation. Its language is always language about human liberation, proclaiming the end of bondage and interpreting the religious dimensions of revolutionary struggle.
Liberation and Black Theology
Unfortunately, American white theology has not been involved in the struggle for black liberation. It has been basically a theology of the white oppressor, giving religious sanction to the genocide of Amerindians and the enslavement of Africans. From the very beginning to the present day, American white theological thought has been “patriotic,” either by defining the theological task independently of black suffering (the liberal northern approach) or by defining Christianity as compatible with white racism (the conservative southern approach). In both cases theology becomes a servant of the state, and that can only mean death to blacks. It is little wonder that an increasing number of black religionists are finding it difficult to be black and be identified with traditional theological thought forms.
The appearance of black theology on the American scene then is due primarily to the failure of white religionists to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society. It arises from the need of blacks to liberate themselves from white oppressors. Black theology is a theology of liberation because it is a theology which arises from an identification with the oppressed blacks of America, seeking to interpret the gospel of Jesus in the light of the black condition. It believes that the liberation of the black community is God’s liberation.
The task of black theology, then, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the light of oppressed blacks so they will see the gospel as inseparable from their humiliated condition, and as bestowing on them the necessary power to break the chains of oppression. This means that it is a theology of and for the black community, seeking to interpret the religious dimensions of the forces of liberation in that community.
There are two reasons why black theology is Christian theology. First, there can be no theology of the gospel which does not arise from an oppressed community. This is so because God is revealed in Jesus as a God whose righteousness is inseparable from the weak and helpless in human society. The goal of black theology is to interpret God’s activity as related to the oppressed black community.
Secondly, black theology is Christian theology because it centers on Jesus Christ. There can be no Christian theology which does not have Jesus Christ as its point of departure. Though black theology affirms the black condition as the primary datum of reality to be reckoned with, this does not mean that it denies the absolute revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Rather it affirms it. Unlike white theology, which tends to make the Jesus-event an abstract, un-embodied idea, black theology believes that the black community itself is precisely where Jesus Christ is at work. The Jesus-event in twentieth-century America is a black-event—that is, an event of liberation taking place in the black community in which blacks recognize that it is incumbent upon them to throw off the chains of white oppression by whatever means they regard as suitable. This is what God’s revelation means to black and white America, and why black theology is an indispensable theology for our time.
It is to be expected that some will ask, “Why black theology? Is it not true that God is color-blind? Is it not true that there are others who suffer as much as, if not in some cases more than, blacks?” These questions reveal a basic misunderstanding of black theology, and also a superficial view of the world at large. There are at least three points to be made here.
First, in a revolutionary situation there can never be nonpartisan theology. Theology is always identified with a particular community. It is either identified with those who inflict oppression or with those who are its victims. A theology of the latter is authentic Christian theology, and a theology of the former is a theology of the Antichrist. Insofar as black theology is a theology arising from an identification with the oppressed black community and seeks to interpret the gospel of Jesus Christ in the light of the liberation of that community, it is Christian theology. American white theology is a theology of the Antichrist insofar as it arises from an identification with the white community, thereby placing God’s approval on white oppression of black existence.
Secondly, in a racist society, God is never color-blind. To say God is color-blind is analogous to saying that God is blind to justice and injustice, to right and wrong, to good and evil. Certainly this is not the picture of God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. Yahweh takes sides. On the one hand, Yahweh sides with Israel against the Canaanites in the occupancy of Palestine. On the other hand, Yahweh sides with the poor within the community of Israel against the rich and other political oppressors. In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors. The God of the biblical tradition is not uninvolved or neutral regarding human affairs; God is decidedly involved. God is active in human history, taking sides with the oppressed of the land. If God is not involved in human history, then all theology is useless, and Christianity itself is a mockery, a hollow, meaningless diversion.
The meaning of this message for our contemporary situation is clear: the God of the oppressed takes sides with the black community. God is not color-blind in the black-white struggle, but has made an unqualified identification with blacks. This means that the movement for black liberation is the very work of God, effecting God’s will among men.
Thirdly, there are, to be sure, many who suffer, and not all of them are black. Many white liberals derive a certain joy from reminding black militants that two-thirds of the poor in America are white. Of course I could point out that this means that there are five times as many poor blacks as there are poor whites, when the ratio of each group to the total population is taken into account.
But it is not my intention to debate white liberals on this issue, for it is not the purpose of black theology to minimize the suffering of others, including whites. Black theology merely tries to discern the activity of the Holy One in achieving the purpose of the liberation of humankind from the forces of oppression.
We must make decisions about where God is at work so we can join in the fight against evil. But there is no perfect guide for discerning God’s movement in the world. Contrary to what many conservatives would say, the Bible is not a blueprint on this matter. It is a valuable symbol for pointing to God’s revelation in Jesus, but it is not self-interpreting. We are thus placed in an existential situation of freedom in which the burden is onus to make decisions without a guaranteed ethical guide. This is the risk of faith. For the black theologian God is at work in the black community, vindicating black victims of white oppression. It is impossible for the black theologian to be indifferent on this issue. Either God is for blacks in their fight for liberation from white oppressors, or God is not. God cannot be both for us and for white oppressors at the same time.
In this connection we may observe that black theology takes seriously Paul Tillich’s description of the symbolic nature of all theological speech.’ We cannot describe God directly; we must use symbols that point to dimensions of reality that cannot be spoken of literally. Therefore to speak of black theology is to speak with the Tillichian understanding of symbol in mind. The focus on blackness does not mean that only blacks suffer as victims in a racist society, but that blackness is an ontological symbol and a visible reality which best describes what oppression means in America.
The extermination of Amerindians, the persecution of Jews, the oppression of Mexican-Americans, and every other conceivable inhumanity done in the name of God and country—these brutalities can be analyzed in terms of the white American inability to recognize humanity in persons of color. If the oppressed of this land want to challenge the oppressive character of white society, they must begin by affirming their identity in terms of the reality that is anti-white. Blackness, then, stands for all victims of oppression who realize that the survival of their humanity is bound up with liberation from whiteness.’ This understanding of blackness can be seen as the most adequate symbol of the dimensions of divine activity in America. And insofar as this country is seeking to make whiteness the dominating power throughout the world, whiteness is the symbol of the Antichrist. Whiteness characterizes the activity of deranged individuals intrigued by their own images of themselves, and thus unable to see they are what is wrong with the world. Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so to prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action…
This is the “Christianity” that the Reverend Wright says he preaches.
WRIGHT: [W]e would call it Christianity. We’ve been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we’ve been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we’ve been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.
We don’t have to say the word “white.” We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America. That’s not the issue; you’re missing the issue…
If you’re not going to talk about theology in context, if you’re not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the ‘60s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone… Do you know black liberation theology? …
How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read? … How many books of Cone’s have you read?
(Click here for the rest of the transcript.)
This is the “Christianity” that Trinity Church sells in its book store.
Does Mr. Obama even know any other kind of Christianity? And if he does, where did he learn it? Where has he spoken about it?
Since Mr. Obama has stressed his Christianity so much in his campaign, shouldn’t we know exactly what it is he is talking about?
Related Articles:
- Obama's Church On White Supremacist Hillary
- Obama's Church: Bush Versus Black Churches
- How Obama's Church 'Remembered' 9/11
- Wright: White Supremacy Caused Abu Ghraib
- Rev Wright at the National Press Club - Text
- Obama's Crackpot Mentor's Crackpot Mentor
- Meet A Lefty White Jeremiah Wright Believer
- White Hatred In Black Liberation Theology
- Obama Defends Rev Wright's Damnable Lies
- Barack Obama - On Meeting Mister Wright
- Racist Jeremiah Wright On White Supremacy
- How The NYT Whitewashed Obama's Pastor
- Hear Obama's Pastor And "Spiritual Mentor"
- Obama's Afrocentric, America-Hating Church
30 Responses to “Whites Are Anti-Christ - Obama Christianity?”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“Either God is for blacks in their fight for liberation from white oppressors, or God is not. God cannot be both for us and for white oppressors at the same time.”
Good golly Miss Molly, did he really say that? Unbelievable! Cone doesn’t have a clue what Christianity is all about . I don’t believe after all is said and done that God is going to judge anyone by their skin color. Leading people astray will hate filled ideology, maybe.
“Since Mr. Obama has stressed his Christianity so much in his campaign, shouldn’t we know exactly what it is he is talking about?”
Exactly, SG.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The task of Christian theology, then, is to analyze the meaning of hope in God in such a way that the oppressed community of a given society will risk all for earthly freedom…
Risking all for earthly freedom is NOT the task of Christian theology.
Jesus said His kingdom was NOT of this world.
It’s aims are not of this world, nor for “earthly freedom.”
The Word of God tells even SLAVES to be obedient to their masters - NOT to “risk all for earthly freedom”.
Tit 2:9 Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back,
Tit 2:10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.
OR NIV version:
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
If this is true of the “oppressed” slave class, and this is the words of Christianity to them in the Word of God, then teaching the oppressed to “risk all for earthly freedom” is not a Biblical command, but a command of men. It is only as Christianity changes hearts and lives that oppression of any kind is destroyed. It is from the inside out and not through seeking to overturn and create Revolution by any means possible (perhaps as Barack’s cousin in Kenya has done?). Such Revolutionary teachings are MARXISM, not Christianity.
Gil.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Unfortunately, American white theology has not been involved in the struggle for black liberation. It has been basically a theology of the white oppressor, giving religious sanction to the genocide of Amerindians and the enslavement of Africans.”
I have to admit, this was news to me.
Here I was thinking that the worldwide abolition movement was begat and promulgated by white Christians — many of whom were also American:
Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist
June 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
SG
S&L was mentioned the Limbaugh show today. Daily News piece from 4/8
June 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“S&L was mentioned the Limbaugh show today. Daily News piece from 4/8″
Thanks. Several people have kindly emailed me with a heads up. Of course I wasn’t listening.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is not going to be held accountable for his ‘kind’ of Christianity. While I firmly agree that his brand of Christianity is antithetical to actual Christianity, I don’t think that he will be called on it during his run for a secular office - even while his ‘church problem’ rears its head during this campaign season.
I consider myself a Christian, and that the office of the President is under the omnipotent rule of the God disclosed in the Holy Bible. However, having Mr. Obama explain his Christianity isn’t a requirement of the Office. It may be important to who the man is, it is not a requirement for office. He is free to practice his religion - as strange and as racist as black liberation theology is. I do agree that he is under obligation to explain what it is he believes because his actions have, by themselves, raised the question.
My concern with Obama is two-fold - which I am sure the point of your article is highlighting: That the man, Obama, joined a church either a) knowing that Trinity church was racist, or b) joined Trinity unaware that the church was racist but joined it anyway as a means to identify with voters that would help him get elected to office.
If Obama joined Trinity church knowing that they taught a heretical version of Christianity that was anti-white - then he needs to own up to it. The problem for Obama is that he can’t admit that for 20 years he bought into black liberation theology, because black liberation theology is racist - it’s no different than false idea that Aryans are, by nature of their ancestors and white skin, God’s favored children.
If Obama joined the church as a way to identify with voters, then he has a more serious set of problems - he has sold his soul in order to advance his agenda. Basically, he is guilty of pride - and I mean real, faustian pride - the kind that is a serious character flaw indicative of a damaged and damaging person(and a major sin, no less). He would have a hard time explaining it to voters - even those voters that would nominally be receptive to Obama - because it would shatter his crafted image as a man of hope. He would be exposed as someone of false hope since his hope was nothing more than a means to justify the end (of getting elected).
Most of us join a church that we feel comfortable worshipping in. We choose a place that meets our needs of spiritual worship and spiritual growth. Either Mr. Obama felt like he was having his spiritual needs met at Trinity, or was a member for 20 years as a method in the election cycle. Either way, it can’t be explained away with just a simple “I am no longer a member” statement.
If he was having his spiritual needs met, he is a racist and needs to be called on that fact. If his membership was a convenient contrivance in his quest for political power, then he needs to be called on that. It doesn’t matter that he quit his church last month, he was there for 20 years. He also hasn’t chosen a new church, which will further exacerbate the theological identity problem he seems to be having (re: closet muslim? closet racist?). Either way, his ‘church problem’ isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Any believer that knows God through Jesus Christ and His scriptures, knows we are called to be color blind! Racism is sin and therefore abhorrent to God.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Love thy neighbor as thyself for the love of God.
Says it all. Covers all eventualities.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
As someone who was a member of TUCC let me say this. People who joined Trinity did not do so because of James Cones and Black Liberation theology. The vast majority joined because of the energy of the worship service, which for many, had to do with the music ministry. Many joined because of the work that Trinity performed in the Black community with multiple outreach programs to the disadvantaged including those in prison, those on drugs etc. Many of you may find this hard to believe, but the sermons were not filled with kill Whitey rhetoric. There were times when Rev. Wright would say things that made a good number of people squirm in their seats but it would be a singular moment in the sermon which was being said to make a specific point then he would move off that point and also relate it to the scripture. White people were never the sole subject of a sermon nor was the government.
Many people left TUCC because of the politics of the church but many also flocked to the church for that same reason. There are many Black Americans who do not trust the government and also who have a basic distrust of White people because of personal experiences much in the same way that that some White people have a basic distrust for Black people because of personal experience. People who go to TUCC are no more racist than any other church congregation when taken as a whole.
retire please don’t make this about the killing of American Indians again by Blacks.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Drobgyn, be that as it may, I have never been in a white church that used gratuitous slurs directed at blacks or any other ethnic group to make a point.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
What slurs are you referring too?
June 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Let’s start out with “white oppressors” There might be a few of those left out there but I am as offended by this as you would be if some minister talked about “simple black folk” in a sermon admonishing us of our duty to take care of people that need taking care of.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Let’s move on to “whiteness is the symbol of the Antichrist” and “the satanic nature of whiteness” if you don’t recognize these statements as slurs I can’t help you. The whole damn article is viscerally offensive.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
As I stated I am not nor was I trying to say I agreed with Cone. As I stated the majority of the members of TUCC have not read his book and would not subscribe to many of his opinoins. They joined TUCC because of the broader message, the music and the messenger. Rev. Wright,who is thought by many in the Black church community, to be one of the greatest preachers of his generation.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Finally, Drobgyn, the point is that this is not a unifying philosophy it is an us against them philosophy. If that’s where Obama is coming from and he does not totally disavow that philosophy he is unelectable. Black gospel music is one of my favorite genres but I wouldn’t sit through an us against them sermon in order to listen to it.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“White people were never the sole subject of a sermon nor was the government.”
I suggest that neither white people nor the government should be the subject of a sermon.
They (whites, blacks or government) aren’t the subject(s) in my church.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
The liberal errr I mean media HATES white people. Someone made a good point today stating that if instead of the USA being Israels supporter, China was their main supporter, the MSM hatred of Israel would dry up, as is the case with countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“They joined TUCC because of the broader message, the music and the messenger. Rev. Wright,who is thought by many in the Black church community, to be one of the greatest preachers of his generation.”
There were fantastic production values, great music and stirring oratory at Nuernberg, as I seem to recall…as well as a broad message. Hitler was considered one of the greatest public speakers of all time, a preacher, such as it were. Both Hitler and Wright were squalling hate…but Hitler is rightly reviled and Wright is defended, and one of Wright’s followers is the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. I don’t know about you, but the thought of Martin Bormann as president does NOT fill me with joyous anticipation.
There is no defense for TUCC and for Wright, Cone, Moss and the other bigots who preach that distorted gospel of hatred. Compare “black liberation theology” with “Christian Identity theology” and the only real difference is race…CIT is white and is preached by the Klan, Stormfront, WAR and the skinheads. It is rightly marginalized and despised by Christians…I see no reason why the hatred and perversion of the Bible spewed by the followers of Cone and his ilk shouldn’t be equally held up into the light so the rest of the world can see it for the malignant fraud that it is! The fact that ol’ Hussein sat there for twenty years, drinking up this mixture of racism and Marxism speaks VOLUMES about how wretched his soul and how twisted his values must be…and to have his two daughters indocrinated into this filth is nothing short of child abuse of the worst variety! I don’t care how many lame excuses he gives, or how “This is unfair” he says it is (ever notice how every legitimate criticism of him is “unfair”? What a thin skinned WIMP! If he can’t take being given the usual anal probe that ANYONE who runs for office gets, then he ought to get his wussy a** out of the race and let the ‘rat with the big clanging brass balls back in…HILLARY CLINTON!), Obama has shown again and again that he has a high tolerance for Marxists, Islamists and anti-American SCUM of all varieties! If through some example of mass stupidity or psychosis this castrated excuse for a Chicago machine hack gets into the White House, this country will be well and thoroughly screwed!
You can call me a “racist” if you want, but frankly, any white candidate with these associations and lack of spine would have been laughed out of the campaign the moment he announced! The sole reason Obama has gained his nomination is because of his race…and THAT’S IT! He has NO legislative or executive accomplishments, he’s a blithering boob when not on a teleprompter, he’s thin skinned, economically illiterate (anyone who espouses as much socialism as he does is either an active socialist or economically illiterate…and his followers, to accept his blatherings, are either themselves Marxists or are economically retarded!), has no clue about how to handle hostile governments (or if he does, his main approach is surrender, which is essentially treason and thus is another example of how manifestly unfit for ANY office he is), and seems hell-bent on destroying all that this country stands for, even to the point of criminalizing the actions of the previous administration…THIS INDIVIDUAL IS A DANGER TO THE CONSTITUTION, OUR SOVERIEGNTY AND OUR LIBERTIES and NO amount of leftist spin and explaining can change that simple fact!
Now, explain how this scuzzball’s race is an issue…I dare you!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
drdobgyn,
Since when is the Church a ‘Black church community’? Doesn’t this, by very definition go against a major tenet of Christianity - that we don’t define ourselves by our skin color, but by our relationship with the Creator? Isn’t the message of Rev. Wright (and Pfleger, and Cone, et al) antithetical to that tenet? Doesn’t that somewhat diminish “one of the greatest preachers of his generation”?
My question to you is, if the messenger is interjecting his message with ‘anti-pick_your_skin_color’ sentiments - regardless of whether they were the ’sole’ subject or not - doesn’t that, by its very nature, remove a preacher from being a great preacher? And if someone were a member of that church for 20 years, wouldn’t it be plausible to assume that they held similar beliefs? You state that you were a member there - why did you leave?
June 10th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
“As I stated the majority of the members of TUCC have not read his book and would not subscribe to many of his opinoins. They joined TUCC because of the broader message, the music and the messenger.”
You know this how? Divine revelation?
There are plenty of YouTubes of the music from the church. It is basically rap — with a lot of the same sentiments.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Nicodemus was told by the Messiah that he must be born again or he would not even see the Kingdom, let alone enter it.
If a person is born again, the change in that person should be obvious.
Be not deceived - all religions are man-made.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Who do you suppose spent the 1990s propagating this and similar ideologies? Who used your tax-dollar? If you said Mrs. Clinton, you’d be 100% correct. I’m always amazed by the ease with which Hillary accomplished this, and the speed at which it came back to bite her. She more than anyone else, cost her own self the 2008 nomination. What happened? By 1997-98, people of all walks were sick to death of the Clintons. In 2007-08, Hillary played Dick Nixon incarnate, wearing a pantsuit. She was a fringe candidate at best. The Clintons favorite tactic, besides the politics of personal destruction: politics of gender & ethnicity. It was a bad, ill-conceived idea, but made worse by poor planning. And, having played the race card, the gender card wasn’t far behind. So, voting Barack Obama was both racist & sexist. Far from uniting the party’s two left wings, the black widow’s venom would easily find its mark – Hillary as VP is out of the question. In addition to vacuous, self-serving political agendas, another characteristic of politicians like Hillary is that where they might readily make allies, they make enemies instead. Although in the words of Senator Dianne Feinstein, “No one brings to a ticket what Hillary brings.” Ditto that: http://theseedsof9-11.com
June 11th, 2008 at 7:52 am
You said it all, Sharps! Fantastic—passionate, well informed and thought out! Thank-you! Again,– true Christianity has no racism. Knowing Jesus Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit is the cure for racism. Wright and his ilk are racists and part of the disease, not the cure.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
drdobgyn -’There are many Black Americans who do not trust the government and also who have a basic distrust of White people because of personal experiences-’
Then explain to me exactly why these people are supporting the one candidate who will expand government the most?
And to the second part of that statement:
Isn’t that stereotyping? And isn’t that exactly what the blacks claim is so bad about white people? And why do you assume that ‘. . .same way that that some White people have a basic distrust for Black people because of personal experience’? Which I do notice that in reference to blacks - you used the adjective many yet for whites you used the adjective some. . .I must ask though - how ignorant, racist, non-Christian, un-American, and inhumane to judge an entire color of people based simply on ‘personal experience’ - some good Christian lessons being taught at TUCC.
But perhaps it is the concentration on ‘the black community’, ‘african-americanism’ and ‘black liberation theology’ rather than focusing on the human experience, American experience and true Christianity that is at the root of this devisiveness and racism that supposedly plagues America.
Funny though, I’ve lived from shore to shore, north to south and never seen any of this so-called racism and oppression - all these people supposedly are talking about and more importantly -experiencing. But then I did do most of it in the military - where the mix of races is so much more tolerant and advanced than in the mainstream American society - as they are the true defenders of freedoms and rights for all Americans, not just a certain group above and beyond all others.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Yes, WHITE people are the problem, like the white farmers in Zimbabwe. How did that work out for Zimbabwe and their country? Oh, and Mugabe just had his goons cut the hands and feet off an opposition leader’s wife, then burnt her alive. But, lets appease these “people”. If only I were in charge, a predator drone would already be in the sky heading towards Mugabe’s house.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365781,00.html
June 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
“There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: “How can we become black?””
Honestly… I think that’s one of the craziest things I have ever read. It reminds me of the lunacy over at the Seattle Public Schools site: (disappeared but of course archived) http://web.archive.org/web/200.....ofrace.xml
My fave bit from that one was this:
Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
Yes, absolutely… making someone feel inferior due to their skin color is wrong and, frankly, unacceptable. And racist. But to escape the label does one have to be an inarticulate and irresponsible leftist too?
June 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness,
Well, that’s already happening. They are called liberals. The rest of us choose to kinda sit this kind of crap out………
June 12th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Look for a repeat of the MauMau revolt that took place in Africa during the 50’s, how it got its start, and the way in which it was finally put down. Two books by author Robert Ruark (”Uhuru”, and “Something Of Value”), while works of fiction, dealt with factual occurrences and the political realities of the times. These realities presaged what eventually took place on that continent with the shift to black rule under the likes of Idi Amin, Mugabe, Odingo, and most others of that stripe. It is not racist to observe what took place, (and is taking place) and factually report what has happened, (and is happening) in the majority of instances and locales where blacks are vested with the mantle of absolute power. Just to read Cone’s ‘Black Liberation Theology’, one must conclude that black oppression of whites is a goal to be pursued. It has nothing to do with fairness, equality, freedom, or religion, (especially Christianity) but more to do with unfettered power. The fact that once such power is realized, the practitioners’ view of society sinks to the level of hatred, oppression, and ultimate chaos is ignored at our own collective peril. Put another way, the track record of blacks occupying positions of ultimate power is dismal, due to their own malfeasance. Or to put it yet another way, they’d screw up a one-car junkyard!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am
“Either God is for blacks in their fight for liberation from white oppressors, or God is not. God cannot be both for us and for white oppressors at the same time.”
See, there is an aire of desperation in reverend wrong’s words. He is starting to realize that a large portion of White America has finally said “enough.” He knows that for the most part, his words are falling on deaf ears, there is no way on God’s Green Earth that this sad excuse of a human being is going to shake my confidence as a white man nor is he going to make me a hateful individual. As Wardmama mentioned earlier, I too served in the military and there is an enormous amount of respect for everyone’s race, I would have and still would lay my life down for ANYONE I served with. Funny thing is we could all get together on a Friday, drink beers, and TALK things through and still be friends. We learned alot about each other’s culture, but the one glaring thing we learned is even though there is a black and white culture in this country, we all had the same needs in life AND we all loved this country. Wright won’t ruin that for me, but it’s situations like that that he wants to destroy because it kills his business.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
-’and label people of color as “other”’- excuse me but isn’t the government & entitlement growing fiberals who require the race indicator on every single piece of government form going?
Just like all those screaming about the evils of government who are supporting Obamanation - who wants to expand government beyond belief.
Forrest Gump’s mother was right Stupid Is As Stupid Does.