Mike Huckabee on Wright

As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.-- Huckabee (link)

 

Preach on.:ylsuper:

So we can now excuse attitudes based on the age of the person and if enough people feel the same way? Unfortunately there are a older white people who still harbor feelings tolerant to segregation. Is their judgement OK?

 

The whole premise of discussions between what is okay thinking between blacks and whites is really tough.

 

First of all whether or not we want to agree you cannot begin to say that the thoughts and ideas of prejudice white people (generally speaking) arises out of a feeling of oppression. The history of this country, unarguably, is one of whites oppressing minorities.

 

So, when an African American has feelings of animosity toward whites it usually arises out of this since of oppression and injustice and bigotry and whatever else. It arises out of seeing people sprayed with fire hoses because of their color, of bodies being buried in levies because they whistled at a white girl, of a cross being burnt on a lawn in CORBIN in the early 1980s b/c an African American athlete from Middlesboro moved in with a white athlete in Corbin not knowing that he wasn't "allowed."

 

I have yet to figure out where the whites' (bigoted whites) feeling of animosity arise. They were not oppressed or discriminated against or held in servitude.

 

So yeah, I can excuse some of the feelings just like Mike Huckabee can.

How many famous people do you know on a close personal basis? I am guessing not many. Have you not formed opinions of President Bush, Bill Clinton, David Duke, the Dalai Lama and others without getting to know them personally, but based on their words and actions?

 

If so, then what makes Rev. Wright any different? Rev. Wright has left a trail of deeds and words behind him for the past 20 years. Why is it unfair to judge him on that basis? Do you have reason to doubt Rev. Wright's claim that Trinity is a black liberation theology church or that he is an admirer of James Cone, the founder of the black liberation theology movement in this country?

 

I don't know if you took time to listen to James Cone's 20 minute interview describing black liberation theology and its roots, but if you have not done so, it might be worth your while. While I was not there physically, it was a one on one freewheeling interview that made me feel as if I was there. I would be glad to sit down with Rev. Wright but I believe that he has decided to adopt a much lower profile for the next few months.:lol:

 

I am skeptical that you, or any other BGP poster, have gone through life refusing to form and express opinions on about any public figures simply because you do not know them personally. I get the feeling that most Obama supporters do not want to know more about Jeremiah Wright and that they would prefer than everybody else turn a blind eye to his racist, anti-American rants.

 

I get the feeling that most Obama bashers (sorry if that is harsher than it should be - couldn't think of a more appropriate word) have already made their mind up about Rev. Wright and they would prefer to turn a blind eye to anything else about the man.

 

Huckabee's interview was a breath of fresh air from the right.

The whole premise of discussions between what is okay thinking between blacks and whites is really tough.

 

First of all whether or not we want to agree you cannot begin to say that the thoughts and ideas of prejudice white people (generally speaking) arises out of a feeling of oppression. The history of this country, unarguably, is one of whites oppressing minorities.

 

So, when an African American has feelings of animosity toward whites it usually arises out of this since of oppression and injustice and bigotry and whatever else. It arises out of seeing people sprayed with fire hoses because of their color, of bodies being buried in levies because they whistled at a white girl, of a cross being burnt on a lawn in CORBIN in the early 1980s b/c an African American athlete from Middlesboro moved in with a white athlete in Corbin not knowing that he wasn't "allowed."

 

 

 

I have yet to figure out where the whites' (bigoted whites) feeling of animosity arise. They were not oppressed or discriminated against or held in servitude.

 

So yeah, I can excuse some of the feelings just like Mike Huckabee can.

 

I think the white attitude comes from this idea that once some event happens (emancipation, civil rights act) that everything should be hunky-dory. Also, low wage white workers in the south lost their jobs to slaves that owners would hire out, so the old "they took our jobs" argument has a long history. And many white folks might think that black people are "ungrateful" for what they've got or that they get "special treatment". Not that it's much. Frankly, racism is just ignorant and stupid. But, I can see why blacks might hold animosity more and I don't see why some people take everything that points out differences as racist and criticism of US policy as anti-american. There are many in this country who want us to wear our lapel pins and shut up.

I think the white attitude comes from this idea that once some event happens (emancipation, civil rights act) that everything should be hunky-dory. Also, low wage white workers in the south lost their jobs to slaves that owners would hire out, so the old "they took our jobs" argument has a long history. And many white folks might think that black people are "ungrateful" for what they've got or that they get "special treatment". Not that it's much. Frankly, racism is just ignorant and stupid. But, I can see why blacks might hold animosity more and I don't see why some people take everything that points out differences as racist and criticism of US policy as anti-american. There are many in this country who want us to wear our lapel pins and shut up.

 

Great point, ME. It is our duty as americans to question decisions that our leaders make.

How many famous people do you know on a close personal basis? I am guessing not many. Have you not formed opinions of President Bush, Bill Clinton, David Duke, the Dalai Lama and others without getting to know them personally, but based on their words and actions?

 

If so, then what makes Rev. Wright any different? Rev. Wright has left a trail of deeds and words behind him for the past 20 years. Why is it unfair to judge him on that basis? Do you have reason to doubt Rev. Wright's claim that Trinity is a black liberation theology church or that he is an admirer of James Cone, the founder of the black liberation theology movement in this country?

 

I don't know if you took time to listen to James Cone's 20 minute interview describing black liberation theology and its roots, but if you have not done so, it might be worth your while. While I was not there physically, it was a one on one freewheeling interview that made me feel as if I was there. I would be glad to sit down with Rev. Wright but I believe that he has decided to adopt a much lower profile for the next few months.:lol:

 

I am skeptical that you, or any other BGP poster, have gone through life refusing to form and express opinions on about any public figures simply because you do not know them personally. I get the feeling that most Obama supporters do not want to know more about Jeremiah Wright and that they would prefer than everybody else turn a blind eye to his racist, anti-American rants.

 

 

Do you feel this way about all liberation theology or just Black Liberation theology? Do you feel this same way towards the Liberation Theology espoused in Central America? (i.e. the late Oscar Romero or Guiteerez)

 

In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, particularly Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor."

 

Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described not in terms of bringing peace (social order) but bringing a sword (social unrest), e.g. Matthew 10:34, Luke 22:35-38 and Matthew 26:51-52. These passages are interpreted as a call to arms to carry out what proponents see as a Christian mission of justice -- literally by some. Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle are also significant.

 

Liberation theology also emphasizes what proponents describe as individual self-actualization as part of God's divine purpose for humankind.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

 

I normally don't like quoting wikipedia but this is a good working definition of liberation theology.

I found this article published by Mike Slaughter who is the pastor of Ginghamsburg Church in Ohio.

 

Dr. Jeremiah Wright has had a powerful ministry at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He has been Barak Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years. Barak made a commitment to follow Jesus under Dr. Wright’s ministry 20 years ago. Jeremiah has initiated many vital social programs in the Chicago area. Numerous young men and women have heard God’s call to preach under his ministry. Frank Thomas, who has spoken at Ginghamsburg on numerous occasions, is but one.

 

A few isolated clips from Rev. Wright’s sermons are being circulated regularly through the media and on YouTube. They reveal controversial and divisive remarks. So is Dr. Wright a racist, divisive radical or an angry righteous prophet?

 

Anointed prophets of God are guilty of sometimes saying the wrong thing. I speak from personal experience. Boy, do I ever wish I could take some things back that I have spoken in a rash of anger or in a moment when the inspiration came from some other source than heaven. In an age of Internet and sermon podcasts, those statements continue to play into eternity. I can’t get them back! You could take some of those isolated clips and make me, and anyone associated with me, look like a real Word Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter Violation, and sometimes for righteous reasons.

 

Jeremiah and I worked on our doctorates together. We have traveled together and worked on the same Jesus causes. I have never heard a racist statement or seen an unchristian attitude toward any person group in all of my encounters with him. Perhaps Jeremiah is living up to the anointing of his namesake, the prophet activist who ministered in the 6th century BC. The prophet Jeremiah lived during the last days of the Jewish Empire through the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah was the “angry” prophet who prophesized the demise of his own nation for forsaking God, the Torah and turning to idolatry. He was considered a traitor and declared an outlaw during the reign of Zedekiah for declaring that Judah’s idolatry had been the cause of Babylon’s impending terrorist attack. He was arrested and held as an enemy of the state.

 

All of God’s prophets have a bit of “Balaam’s ass” in us. Forgive us when we are wrong, but listen carefully for what is right!

 

http://mikeslaughter.com/blog

 

I think this speaks a lot for me and maybe a little of what I've been trying to say. :thumb:

I found this article published by Mike Slaughter who is the pastor of Ginghamsburg Church in Ohio.

 

Dr. Jeremiah Wright has had a powerful ministry at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He has been Barak Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years. Barak made a commitment to follow Jesus under Dr. Wright’s ministry 20 years ago. Jeremiah has initiated many vital social programs in the Chicago area. Numerous young men and women have heard God’s call to preach under his ministry. Frank Thomas, who has spoken at Ginghamsburg on numerous occasions, is but one.

 

A few isolated clips from Rev. Wright’s sermons are being circulated regularly through the media and on YouTube. They reveal controversial and divisive remarks. So is Dr. Wright a racist, divisive radical or an angry righteous prophet?

 

Anointed prophets of God are guilty of sometimes saying the wrong thing. I speak from personal experience. Boy, do I ever wish I could take some things back that I have spoken in a rash of anger or in a moment when the inspiration came from some other source than heaven. In an age of Internet and sermon podcasts, those statements continue to play into eternity. I can’t get them back! You could take some of those isolated clips and make me, and anyone associated with me, look like a real Word Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter ViolationWord Filter Violation, and sometimes for righteous reasons.

 

Jeremiah and I worked on our doctorates together. We have traveled together and worked on the same Jesus causes. I have never heard a racist statement or seen an unchristian attitude toward any person group in all of my encounters with him. Perhaps Jeremiah is living up to the anointing of his namesake, the prophet activist who ministered in the 6th century BC. The prophet Jeremiah lived during the last days of the Jewish Empire through the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah was the “angry” prophet who prophesized the demise of his own nation for forsaking God, the Torah and turning to idolatry. He was considered a traitor and declared an outlaw during the reign of Zedekiah for declaring that Judah’s idolatry had been the cause of Babylon’s impending terrorist attack. He was arrested and held as an enemy of the state.

 

All of God’s prophets have a bit of “Balaam’s ass” in us. Forgive us when we are wrong, but listen carefully for what is right!

 

http://mikeslaughter.com/blog

 

I think this speaks a lot for me and maybe a little of what I've been trying to say. :thumb:

 

I would agree that this is well-written and makes some good points. But something that strikes me odd is that Mr. Slaughter seems to be recognizing that Wright's remarks were inappropriate/offensive/devisive and even apologitic for them - something that Wright himself hasn't done, and apparently refuses to do. I suspect that this is because this is a long-standing attitude and pattern of speech by Wright and not an isolated incident (his issuance of a lifetime achievement award to Farakhan would certianly seem to support this). I wonder if Wright is at all offended that Obama has denounced his words and pretty much apologized on his behalf?

Still no specific instances of a "racist remark" - amazing . . .

 

railing against a white power structure, which is really all he has been doing is not a bad thing. I rail against it all the time, I just don't call it a "white power structure" I call it the government but it is essentially the same thing.

Still no specific instances of a "racist remark" - amazing . . .

 

railing against a white power structure, which is really all he has been doing is not a bad thing. I rail against it all the time, I just don't call it a "white power structure" I call it the government but it is essentially the same thing.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you consider Imus' remark to be racist?

 

And even if you don't want to classify Wright's word/writings as racist, they are still devisive/inflammatory/offfesive - at least to most people. Certainly to all of the people that seem to be denouncing his words and apologizing for him.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider Imus' remark to be racist?

 

And even if you don't want to classify Wright's word/writings as racist, they are still devisive/inflammatory/offfesive - at least to most people. Certainly to all of the people that seem to be denouncing his words and apologizing for him.

 

Don Imus singled out a group of innocent girls who had no power and used words that had historically been used to degrade a particular race and to degrade women. Yes they were racist remarks. Na**y is a perjorative term used by whites to denote a lesser individual. The other word is a perjorative term for women.

 

White supremacist is perjorative as well, but Rev. Wright was attacking a power structure. He did not single out 15 individuals and call them names. He is saying that white supremacists created a society that have demeaned and oppressed minorities.

 

By the way I can chose to say that I am not a part of the group that created this society and therefore not a white supremist, if I choose. The girls of the Rutgers basketball team could not say that they were not members.

Don Imus singled out a group of innocent girls who had no power and used words that had historically been used to degrade a particular race and to degrade women. Yes they were racist remarks. Na**y is a perjorative term used by whites to denote a lesser individual. The other word is a perjorative term for women.

 

White supremacist is perjorative as well, but Rev. Wright was attacking a power structure. He did not single out 15 individuals and call them names. He is saying that white supremacists created a society that have demeaned and oppressed minorities.

 

By the way I can chose to say that I am not a part of the group that created this society and therefore not a white supremist, if I choose. The girls of the Rutgers basketball team could not say that they were not members.

 

I, too, would have considered Imus' remark as "racist", but it doesn't meet the definition that was posted by you in post #1 or by another "pro-Wright" person in post #22. Come on, we need to be consistent here. If Imus is a racist because he made a (single) degrading, insensitive, insulting, inflammatory comment, then you have to apply the same standard to Wright. And, like it or not, the term "white supremacist" falls under the exact same category, no matter how you may try to justify it. You are wrong - he was not railing against the white "power structure" (not that it would make his remarks any more acceptable anyways) - he was railing against WHITES. Period. And since you are white, sorry, but he was talking about you. You are not excluded. In fact, his remark was worse than Imus under your standards. Imus "only" directed his filthy remark to 15 people. Wright directed his garbage to an entire white community.

I, too, would have considered Imus' remark as "racist", but it doesn't meet the definition that was posted by you in post #1 or by another "pro-Wright" person in post #22. Come on, we need to be consistent here. If Imus is a racist because he made a (single) degrading, insensitive, insulting, inflammatory comment, then you have to apply the same standard to Wright. And, like it or not, the term "white supremacist" falls under the exact same category, no matter how you may try to justify it. You are wrong - he was not railing against the white "power structure" (not that it would make his remarks any more acceptable anyways) - he was railing against WHITES. Period. And since you are white, sorry, but he was talking about you. You are not excluded. In fact, his remark was worse than Imus under your standards. Imus "only" directed his filthy remark to 15 people. Wright directed his garbage to an entire white community.

 

In your opinion...

Still no specific instances of a "racist remark" - amazing . . .

 

railing against a white power structure, which is really all he has been doing is not a bad thing. I rail against it all the time, I just don't call it a "white power structure" I call it the government but it is essentially the same thing.

 

Should I conclude that you believe that the terms "government" and "white power structure" are equivalent terms?

Why are some on here defending Wright's words so adamantly, when Sen. Obama himself has condemned them?