Wright in Context

[kypride]

...

[kypride]

Like I said, I'm not going to convince some (mainly you two) that Wright isn't racist. However, I would appreciate it if you would actually watch the videos and give it more thought than just a sound byte or what Hannity, Limbaugh, and Faux News are telling you. I brought up the SBC b/c what is to say that Trinity UCC has rejected the "racist" parts of Cone's writings. The SBC has rejected the racist parts of their heritage but still adhere to about 99.9% of the theology.

 

I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona.

[bballfamily]

I noticed!

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position regarding Iraq vs. Vietnam.:thumb:

 

To be honest, in some ways, the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS an attack born of US policy...

 

 

In September 1940, the U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.

 

In April 1941, the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviet Union to help prevent an attack from that direction if they were to go to war with Britain or the U.S. while taking a bigger bite out of Southeast Asia.

 

June 1941 through the end of July 1941, Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.

 

Toward the end of 1941, with the Soviets seemingly on the verge of defeat by the Axis powers, Japan seized the opportunity to try to take the oil resources of Southeast Asia. The U.S. wanted to stop Japanese expansion but the American people were not willing to go to war to stop it. The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory.

 

Prior to December 1941, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and ... to prepare for war.

 

After becoming Japan's premier in mid-October, General Tojo Hideki See Books about Tojo secretly set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war.

 

The Japanese military was asked to devise a war plan. They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.

 

The U.S. had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew an attack was imminent. A warning had been sent from Washington, but it arrived too late.

 

Early warning radar was new technology. Japanese planes were spotted by radar before the attack, but they were assumed to be a flight of American B-17s due in from the West Coast.

 

I would say these similarities are worth noting:

US Foreign Policy-specifically the attempts by the US to weaken the Japanese threat while remaining neutral in the war.

 

Advance warning-although it's clear the warning of the attack arrived too late in the instance of Pearl Harbor, the warnings were (sort of) too late in the instance of the 9/11 attacks. They had been noted, but the right people didn't convey them or heed them.

 

Power-Both the Japanese and the Islamic terrorists felt (feel) they are the "master race" so to speak.

 

We sent notice to all our Pacific bases warning of a potential attack, but we did not know were. Many thought it would be against the Philippines as it was closer to Japan. The attack on Pearl Harbor was at this time one of the great military efforts at that time.

 

The reason we brought about the embargo was the brutal mistreatment of the Chinese by the Japanese, at a time when a large majority of Americans had very strong isolationalist feelings.

[AcesFull]

More context for Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

 

Obama is shocked, simply shocked by Hamas op-ed in his church's newspaper

 

Sen. Barack Obama says that a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church's bulletin was "outrageously wrong." In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled "Pastor's Page," the Trinity United Church in Chicago reprinted an article by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook. The article, which originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, justifies the Palestinian terrorist group's denial of Israel's right to exist.

 

In slamming the Hamas piece, Obama noted again that he strongly rejects some of his longtime pastor's views. "I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn't in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin," Obama said in a statement e-mailed to JTA late Thursday.

 

"Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor."

[cooperstown]

Liberation theology is a little deeper than some of you are speaking of and it is a little deeper than just the blurbs some of you have printed.

 

Liberation theology comes out of a context of extreme persecution and repression. It's not like it's inherent to only the black religious community. It is has really been prevelant in the South America and Latin America. Check out Oscar Romero and much of the Catholic movement in El Salvador during the late 70's through the 80's. Many of them espoused a Liberation theology based on terrible repression and cruelty from the government and establishment.

 

All I am saying is you should not just throw off the concept of Liberation Theology without diving deeper into it's tenents on all levels.

 

Specifically, this is how James Cone defines Black Liberation Theology:

 

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

 

I don't think I need to delve any deeper into the tenets of this theology or "religion." And I certainly don't want a presdient who is afraid to openly distance himself from such sickening teachings.

[AcesFull]

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.'s church, Trinity United Church of Christ awarded Louis Farrakhan its Lifetime Achievement award late last year.

 

“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says

the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, likening the Minister’s influence to

the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with

him, but they listen...

His depth on analysis when it comes to the

racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a

perspective that is helpful and honest

.

 

“Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and

21st century giants of the African American religious experience,”

continues Wright. “His integrity and honesty have secured him a

place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love

for Africa and African American people has made him an unforget-

table force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere

about his faith and his purpose.” -

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

[AcesFull]

Specifically, this is how James Cone defines Black Liberation Theology:

 

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

 

I don't think I need to delve any deeper into the tenets of this theology or "religion." And I certainly don't want a presdient who is afraid to openly distance himself from such sickening teachings.

I agree almost 100%. However, I think that it is necessary to delve a little deeper into black liberation theology for the benefit of those who are hoping that the link between James Cone's brand of black liberation theology is only tangentially related to Barack Obama's mentor and Trinity United Church of Christ.

 

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, Obama, the Democratic presidential front-runner, didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

 

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's 1969 book, Black Theology & Black Power.

 

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and that the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.

 

Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn't believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.

 

In an interview,

Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to [Trinity] first."

Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition. -

Some views at Obama's church are controversial

[All Tell]

More context for Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

 

Obama is shocked, simply shocked by Hamas op-ed in his church's newspaper

 

Sen. Barack Obama says that a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church's bulletin was "outrageously wrong." In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled "Pastor's Page," the Trinity United Church in Chicago reprinted an article by Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzook. The article, which originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, justifies the Palestinian terrorist group's denial of Israel's right to exist.

 

In slamming the Hamas piece, Obama noted again that he strongly rejects some of his longtime pastor's views. "I have already condemned my former pastor's views on Israel in the strongest possible terms,

and I certainly wasn't in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin,"

Obama said in a statement e-mailed to JTA late Thursday.

 

"Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor."

 

Does Obama ever go to church? He certainly seems to "conveniently" not be there when Wright says something stupid.

 

Amazing how that works.

[AcesFull]

Does Obama ever go to church? He certainly seems to "conveniently" not be there when Wright says something stupid.

 

Amazing how that works.

:lol: I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed Obama's good fortune. At least Obama can be counted upon to condemn anything that Rev. Wright has said in his absence that offends enough voters.

[acemona]

Or it might be that those statements are so rare . . .

[ladiesbballcoach]

My main issue with Wright's statements is that are they based in Scripture.

 

His statements coming from the pulpit have to be looked at in a TOTALLY different light than statements that might be posted on here or said in a political speech.

 

My problem with his statements is that I want to see his justification that these words would be supported through Scripture and would be a stance that Jesus would support.

 

I have a hard time believing that Jesus would be caught up in a racial or gender movement/culture.

 

He is caught up in a human movement and the advancement of all humans into the acceptance of Jesus as our Savior.

[cooperstown]

Or it might be that those statements are so rare . . .

 

Nonetheless, it was still Obama's very good fortune to have been absent on those "rare" Sundays when Wright's anti-American hate messages were preached.

[cooperstown]

Words of Jeremiah Wright from his May 2006 newsletter:

 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/racist-jeremiah-wright-on-white-supremacy

 

I would consider "some" of this to be a tad racist.

[AcesFull]

The crucifixion was a first-century lynching.

 

The cross can redeem the lynching tree, and thereby bestow upon lynched black bodies an eschatological meaning for their ultimate existence.

 

The cross can also redeem white lynchers, and their descendants, too, but not without profound cost, not without the revelation of the wrath and justice of God, which executes divine judgment, with the

demand for repentance and reparation

, as a presupposition of divine mercy and forgiveness. Most whites want mercy and forgiveness, but not justice and

reparations;

they want reconciliation without liberation, the resurrection without the cross. -

James Cone: The Cross and the Lynching Tree

Does anybody know Senator Obama's position on reparations by modern white people for the slavery of the 19th century? If not, is it not a fair question to ask a member of a black liberation church?

[cooperstown]

Does anybody know Senator Obama's position on reparations by modern white people for the slavery of the 19th century? If not, is it not a fair question to ask a member of a black liberation church?

 

Very fair, given that as President he would be in the position to use taxpayer dollars for these reparations that Mr. Cone claims is the only way that white man can be truly forgiven.