Thursday, March 27, 2008

A God For Us

Dr. James Hal Cone is one of the leading lights behind the Black Liberation Theology that Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright espouses. Here is some of what he believes:

* "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."

* "All white men are responsible for white oppression."

* "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."

* "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil.""

* "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples."

* "We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."
The more you know about Rev. Wright's theology the less you like it, except in some circles.

Go Obama!

You might also like Liberation Theology and this video of James Cone in his own words.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

8 comments:

tomcpp said...

It's basically islam. No wonder muslims like him.

Ethnocentric (= racist), warfare-oriented religion ... invented by the paedophile prophet, perfected by adolf hitler (who also tried to make christianity fit inside it, unsuccessfully, so he started killing priests)

It is possible to hold this type of ideology "peacefully" (that is, without world wars, massive "internal" violence will still be the result), but it is destined to fail, because it fails economically. When it fails economically, blame is externalized, and the horde attacks.

This attack can only be delayed, not prevented.

DWPittelli said...

Obama associate Jeremiah Wright does seem like a nutcase. But if we are to look at people who are not actually Obama associates, but associates of Obama associates, then shouldn't we do the same for other candidates? Could anyone stand up to such scrutiny, and would it be a relevant qualification for the Presidency if one could?

al fin said...

Obama has worked for over 30 years to be qualified to be president of US blacks. But that is just 15% of the US population. He is distinctly unqualified to be president of anyone else--he has made sure of that.

The delusions of Jeremiah Wright are exactly what gave Obama the street credibility to be accepted by most US blacks. He cannot give that up and still have a "locked-in" constituency.

M. Simon said...

DWPittelli,

I think the better metric is: who are a candidates spiritual mentors and where a candidate sends his/her children for moral education. I think most candidates could pass that test.

Association is not enough.

M. Simon said...

Obama's #1 mistake was to title his book with a phrase from a sermon by his spiritual mentor and making that phrase a campaign theme that opened the door to all this. Just what was he Hoping for?

Obama was told by his pastor that jettisoning TUCC/Wright was a requirement for winning a national election.

The fact that Obama waited until the move was forced on him (and didn't even do it then) says he lacks the judgment to make hard choices.

DWPittelli said...

m. simon,

Indeed, Obama fails the "spiritual mentor" test compared to Clinton and McCain, if you choose to define it that way.

And Wright's angry and unhinged sermons are not a bogus issue. But I don't see how, in the real world where Democrats must choose between Obama and Clinton -- politicians of similar ideology, but quite different character and history -- Jeremiah Wright is an issue which should be dispositive for anyone with a sense of proportion.

Imagine, if you will, how the Wright issue could have been worse for Obama:

Imagine that, instead of merely making incendiary, and anti-American sermons, Wright went so far as to also build and set bombs, for the purpose of killing government employees. And went to prison for these crimes.

Further imagine that: instead of merely listening to Wright's speeches and closely associating himself with Wright, without actually adopting Wright's harsh language or beliefs; Obama had abused the power of his public office to pardon Wright, freeing him from prison in contradiction to normal procedures under which Wright would never be eligible for pardon, such as Wright's public lack of repentance. And imagine that this pardon was an obvious way for Obama to curry favor with Wright's followers, to get their votes.

Next imagine that there are 14 Wrights, all of them such unrepentant terrorists, and all of them pardoned by Obama, to get more votes in Chicago.

Finally, make the anti-American terrorists Puerto Rican FALN members instead of black Chicago residents, and make Obama the Clintons, and this becomes another issue altogether: this is the true reality of the depth of disgrace to which that couple sunk the Presidency in their pursuit of Hillary's continued power.

al fin said...

Actually, Wright's teachings form the perfect foundation for radical black liberationists to begin a campaign of terror. Think of Wright as a modern-day Qutb. Think of Obama's wife Michelle as one of his most promising disciples. Think of Obama as the vaginal-wrenched, street-cred craving male bimbo who cynically stumbles his way into the middle of the burgeoning liberationist movement.

Yeah, Obam could pardon Wright, Michelle, and himself in one fell swoop!

M. Simon said...

DWPittelli,

I don't disagree with your points. And pardoning terrorists is worse than just hanging out with them.

Which leads us to Bernadine Dhorn and William Ayres.

As a somewhat independent Republican not gaming a Dem Primary (voting for the worst candidate) I would be hard pressed to choose a candidate. My weighting would be: 50.1 Clinton. 49.9 Obama. Which is to say I could easily be moved from one candidate to another.

I'm not too happy with McCain either. I'd give him about 53 to 47 over either Dem.

My mom (88), who is a yellow dog Dem, says this is the worst line up of candidates she has ever seen. Worst I've ever seen. Unless you count Nixon. I'm an R these days and I still hate Nixon.