PDA

View Full Version : Obama Leaves Trinity Church


HometownGal
06-01-2008, 03:43 PM
Sorry, pal. Too little, too late. Do you honestly expect voters with any degree of intelligence to buy into this sudden realization that your pastoral buddy, the Rev. Wright, is a racist? Give me a break. :coffee:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-quits-church-after-controversy/20080531183109990001?icid=1615988631x1203357310x12 00309465

Obama Quits Church After Controversy

By TOM RAUM,AP
Posted: 2008-06-01 12:45:48

ABARDEEN, S.D. (June 1) - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by a visiting priest.

"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.

"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."

Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month, which reignited the furor over remarks Wright had made in various sermons at the church.

"I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said.

"It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles," he said.

"I have no idea how it will impact my presidential campaign but I know it was the right thing to do for me and my family," he said.

"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he added.

Trinity released a statement Saturday night saying: "Though we are saddened by the news, we understand that it is a personal decision. We will continue to lift them in prayer and wish them the best as former members of our Trinity community."

For months, Obama has been hamstrung by the rhetoric of Wright, whose sermons blaming U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 attacks and calls of "God damn America" for its racism became fixtures on the Internet and cable news networks.

Initially, Obama said he disagreed with Wright but portrayed him as a family member he couldn't disown. The preacher had officiated at Obama's wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his spiritual mentor for some 20 years.

But six weeks after Obama's well-received speech on race, Wright claimed at the Press Club appearance that the U.S. government was capable of planting AIDS in the black community, praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and suggested that Obama was acting like a politician by putting his pastor at arm's length while privately agreeing with him.

The next day, Obama denounced Wright's comments as "divisive and destructive."

Remarks by Wright inflamed racial tensions and posed an unwanted problem for Obama, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, as he sought to wrap up the party's nod.

More recently, racially charged remarks from the same pulpit by another pastor, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, kept the controversy alive and proved the latest thorn in Obama's side. As a guest speaker at Obama's church, Pfleger mocked Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Although Obama condemned comments by both Wright and Pfleger, the controversy persisted.

Obama made clear he wasn't happy with Pfleger's comments in which the Catholic priest pretended he was Clinton crying over "a black man stealing my show" and said he was "deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

Pfleger issued an apology, saying he was sorry if his comments offended Clinton or anyone else.

The timing of Obama's decision broke late Saturday, while most of the political attention was focused on the Democratic National Committee's struggle to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Republican John McCain also has had his woes with religious leaders.

Earlier this month, McCain rejected endorsements from two influential but controversial televangelists, saying there is no place for their incendiary criticisms of other faiths.

McCain spurned the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment "crazy and unacceptable."

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.

"This was one I didn't see coming," Obama said Saturday when he asked if he had anticipated the firestorm that would erupt over his relationship with Wright.

SteelCityMan786
06-01-2008, 04:34 PM
I think it makes no difference. The majority of America will vote McCain in the general election unless McCain has bad luck run rabid.

Black@Gold Forever32
06-01-2008, 10:16 PM
Who cares if Rev. Wright is a racist? I didn't know Wright was running for president and I don't think Wright speaks for Senator Obama......Obama is his own man......God I love White America.....lol Makes me ashamed to be white...lol

Preacher
06-01-2008, 10:36 PM
Who cares if Rev. Wright is a racist? I didn't know Wright was running for president and I don't think Wright speaks for Senator Obama......Obama is his own man......God I love White America.....lol Makes me ashamed to be white...lol

Would you say the same thing if you found out McCain was part of a white supremacist church?

Because black liberation theology is a Black Supremacy theology.

If that was his mentor, then there is legitimate questions as to whether he has taken those teaching to himself.

If he hasn't... then great. But they ARE legitimate questions.

Godfather
06-01-2008, 10:50 PM
If he didn't know Wright was a racist he's too naive to be President.

Preacher
06-01-2008, 11:27 PM
To be honest...

He may have stayed at the church because he was appreciative of the way the pastor invested in his personal life.

He may have believed that everything else that was taught was right on, and he just overlooked that part.

Or he may have agreed completely, and now is covering it over.

If politicians were lambasted for just SPEAKING at Bob Jones university... then politicians are DEFINITELY to AT LEAST be questioned about sitting under black liberation theology teaching for the last twenty years.

CantStop85
06-01-2008, 11:40 PM
The funny thing is, besides the overly zealous black oppression remarks, I agree with most of what Rev. Wright has to say. His approach/delivery is just too radical for most people's tastes.

That being said, Barrack is his own man. I wouldn't say my preacher necessarily reflects my own personal views and values. If we could stop worrying about what church a candidate goes to and whether or not he's wearing an american flag on his lapel and actually focus on the issues, maybe we could actually get somewhere in politics.

TroysBadDawg
06-02-2008, 04:31 AM
As a former POW I can not nor could I ever vote for someone who refuses to salute the flag of the United States of America by hold his hand over his heart, while he is running for the highest office, the Presidency.

Both he and his wife have been back tracking on things they have said, especially his wife who would have undue influence on him if he were to be President.

JMHO

stillers4me
06-02-2008, 06:36 AM
The funny thing is, besides the overly zealous black oppression remarks, I agree with most of what Rev. Wright has to say. His approach/delivery is just too radical for most people's tastes.

That being said, Barrack is his own man. I wouldn't say my preacher necessarily reflects my own personal views and values. If we could stop worrying about what church a candidate goes to and whether or not he's wearing an american flag on his lapel and actually focus on the issues, maybe we could actually get somewhere in politics.

I am looking at the issues.

And I still would never vote for a socialist.

steelwall
06-02-2008, 06:48 AM
Who cares if Rev. Wright is a racist? I didn't know Wright was running for president and I don't think Wright speaks for Senator Obama......Obama is his own man......God I love White America.....lol Makes me ashamed to be white...lol


I fing your statement to be disgusting.


Who cares??? Would you like your President's mentor to be a racist....I certainly care.

What do you think?..... Obama sat there in church and called out Rev. Wrong on all his racist statements. Or maybe he called the Rev in the back room after a heated racist sermon , and asked him to tone it down, he doesnt agree with such sermons? Get real man. He distanced himself for political reasons and thats that.

And for the record I don't have a racist bone in my body, I'm married to a Chinese for goddness sakes, but I do despise those that are racist no matter what race they are.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-02-2008, 07:26 AM
Who cares if Rev. Wright is a racist? I didn't know Wright was running for president and I don't think Wright speaks for Senator Obama......Obama is his own man......God I love White America.....lol Makes me ashamed to be white...lol

Your right ..he is his own man. He made the choice to sit in the pew for 20 years while the pastor (doesnt matter if he is white or black) spewed racist venom.

Racism and the support of racism in any form,,whether passive or aggressive is wrong,....PERIOD.

Any person who finds justification or shame in the color of their skin....needs to reevaluate their priorities.

TackleMeBen
06-02-2008, 07:40 AM
Your right ..he is his own man. He made the choice to sit in the pew for 20 years while the pastor (doesnt matter if he is white or black) spewed racist venom.

Racism and the support of racism in any form,,whether passive or aggressive is wrong,....PERIOD.

Any person who finds justification or shame in the color of their skin....needs to reevaluate their priorities.
:iagree: very well said LLT :thumbsup:

steelwall
06-02-2008, 07:42 AM
I have to say this.... I'm sorry if I offend any race but what I am about to share is the gods honest truth.

I doubt Rev. Wrong has seen anything close to the racism I've (and my wife) endured.

I was kicked out of an apartment here because my wife rented the apartment, but once the landlord found out I was white, she made us move.....even got the local police involved. Hows that for some 1950's for your @$$.

I have been called racist names by government officials here. In the US if a low level government offical calld a black the "N" word to his face infront of 50 or so witnesses,,, how long do think that official would keep his job? Jail time perhaps? What happened to the official that called me a racist name.....nothing.

Denied sets at restraunts...been there done that.

Go to a local store and the price automaticly increases110% because I'm white... would this be tolerated in todays US?

The list could go on and on. The US has became a nation of whinners and people who wont accept reality. Reality is....you don't know how good you have it in today's world.

HometownGal
06-02-2008, 02:42 PM
Your right ..he is his own man. He made the choice to sit in the pew for 20 years while the pastor (doesnt matter if he is white or black) spewed racist venom.

Racism and the support of racism in any form,,whether passive or aggressive is wrong,....PERIOD.

Any person who finds justification or shame in the color of their skin....needs to reevaluate their priorities.

:thumbsup::hatsoff::applaudit:

KeiselPower99
06-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Its not that Im racist I just dont trust Obama. He is MUSLIM!!!!!! He is supported by muslin nations. He has no pride in America. I want a person in the White House that doesnt want the job cause those people will do the most for us. Shut the borders blow up Iran and drill in the states. Im tired of Left wingers holding this country down.

Preacher
06-02-2008, 04:13 PM
The saddest thing about this situation is that the headlines have already been written if Obama loses.... America is still racist.


We have seen that in this thread...

My best friend has dealt with it... He told someone that he wasn't voting for Obama... no way he could based on Obama's beliefs. The person he was talking to started calling him racist.

Funny thing, my best friend is married to a black lady, and I am the PROUD Godfather of the child.

My own wife is Jewish...

but because we are conservative... we are racists.

what a joke.

HometownGal
06-02-2008, 04:32 PM
The saddest thing about this situation is that the headlines have already been written if Obama loses.... America is still racist.


We have seen that in this thread...

My best friend has dealt with it... He told someone that he wasn't voting for Obama... no way he could based on Obama's beliefs. The person he was talking to started calling him racist.

Funny thing, my best friend is married to a black lady, and I am the PROUD Godfather of the child.

My own wife is Jewish...

but because we are conservative... we are racists.

what a joke.

I'm with you here Father. I don't have a racist bone in my body and don't care what color, size or shape a candidate is or what their party affiliation is. If I don't agree with his/her platform(s), I'm not voting for him/her and it's as simple as that.

While I will freely admit to not trusting Muslims, it doesn't mean that I hate them or wish any harm upon those who are decent, peace-loving human beings.

GBMelBlount
06-02-2008, 04:40 PM
I ... don't care what color, size or shape a candidate is....

....so even though most politicians are large, brown & turd shaped it doesn't matter to you? You're awesome! :thumbsup:

Preacher
06-02-2008, 04:50 PM
I'm with you here Father. I don't have a racist bone in my body and don't care what color, size or shape a candidate is or what their party affiliation is. If I don't agree with his/her platform(s), I'm not voting for him/her and it's as simple as that.

While I will freely admit to not trusting Muslims, it doesn't mean that I hate them or wish any harm upon those who are decent, peace-loving human beings.


Exactly.

Is there racism in this country? Absolutely. However, by crying wolf every time an issue between a black and a white person arises, when REAL racist issues come up... many people just turn a deaf ear because they have heard it all before...

Cry wolf when the WOLF IS COMING.

after all, it IS possible for things to happen that DOESN"T reflect race.

HometownGal
06-02-2008, 05:05 PM
Exactly.

Is there racism in this country? Absolutely. However, by crying wolf every time an issue between a black and a white person arises, when REAL racist issues come up... many people just turn a deaf ear because they have heard it all before...

Cry wolf when the WOLF IS COMING.

after all, it IS possible for things to happen that DOESN"T reflect race.

Careful - - you make perfect sense here. Conservatives aren't supposed to make sense. :wink02::chuckle:

Racism sucks and anyone who advocates it in any fashion needs a swift kick in the doopa.

Hawk Believer
06-02-2008, 06:40 PM
So people are worried that Obama was influenced too much by Rev. Wright and his Chicago church. At the same time he is being accused of being Muslim by some on this thread. Anyone see the paradox? Which is it? If the Rev. is Obama's puppet master, seems like Barak would be Christian....

Sure would like to see the evidence that Obama is a Muslim.

HometownGal
06-02-2008, 07:00 PM
If the Rev. is Obama's puppet master, seems like Barak would be Christian....



I don't think anyone here is saying that the Rev. is Obama's puppet master, Hawk. The Rev. strongly comes across as a racist and Obama supported and followed this man's teachings for over 20 years. I don't think the Rev. just recently started thumping his anti-white and anti-American sermons.

I don't view any racist as a Christian for the record.

Hawk Believer
06-02-2008, 07:32 PM
I totally agree that the Rev. Wright is open to discussion. I think the issue of his membership in that church is much more complex than a looped sound bite. I was responding to the spreading of the xenophobic lie contending Obama is a Muslim.

steelwall
06-02-2008, 09:37 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't care one iotta if Obama was muslim, (which I dont think he is). Fack is he had an active role in a church lead by a man who was, for all intents and purposes anti-America, and anti-white..... Thats a huge negative to me....and I'd say the same thing if Obama was white.

Preacher
06-02-2008, 11:51 PM
I totally agree that the Rev. Wright is open to discussion. I think the issue of his membership in that church is much more complex than a looped sound bite. I was responding to the spreading of the xenophobic lie contending Obama is a Muslim.

it isn't that easy to be honest. One thing about liberation theology is that it often relinquishes the exclusivity of Christ and moves to a universal salvation, which opens up the practitioners to identify themselves in a variety of ways.

That is why you often get something like the million man march... and see mulitple faiths there, although it was driven out of nation of Islam.

Hawk Believer
06-03-2008, 01:40 AM
Honestly, I wouldn't care one iotta if Obama was muslim, (which I dont think he is). Fack is he had an active role in a church lead by a man who was, for all intents and purposes anti-America, and anti-white..... Thats a huge negative to me....and I'd say the same thing if Obama was white.

I agree that playing the race card is a negative. It drives me crazy that Hillary has been playing the sexism card when I can think of only one occassion where she was treated differently by the press because she was a woman(the Chris Matthews statement).

The thing is that when I look at what Obama has said and his actions, I don't see him saying playing the race card. The only thing I can find in his history are statements in books about realizations about how race was effecting his life growing up that hardly seem like implausible perceptions.

When it comes down to it, there will be a few people who don't vote for Hillary because solely she is a woman and a few who don't vote for Obama because he is black. There will probably be more people who vote for them for the same reasons. And when or if either of them lose, there will be some people who will try to blame the loss entirely on sexism or racism, even if those where not the obvious causes. It really doesn't seem to me that Obama is one of those type of people when I examine his statements and behavior.

With regards to the church he belonged to, I still think his relationship with the church can't be reduced to those sound bites. From what I have read, there are many, many positive things the church had done for the community. I do think it is interesting that many commentators are so quick to talk about how the black community needs to take responsibility for itself, but when some organizations try to focus primarily on the black community they are accused of being divisive segregationists or supremecisits.

Some things that Wright said were lies and detrimental (e.g., the US created AIDS). But some of the things that many people are getting upset about, such as considering what Gods opinion is about our government's inherently flawed (we are a nation of sinners) policies are healthy things for a congregation to examine from a theological perspective.

I do think its very possible that the most imflamitory things Wright said were fairly infrequent and don't soley represent all the factors by which he should be judged. I certainly don't think that everyone who has associated with him should be judged soley by them as well. I am Catholic. I choose to be a Catholic in spite of vehement disagreements with the Pope and the Chatechism on issues like birth control and role of women. I certainly don't condone pedophilia, but I have probably sat in the pews while some p.o.s. priest who had a thing for altar boys was giving a homily. I hope that I am not going to held accountable for opinions and actions of priests and Popes that I don't agree with. I have made the choice to remain active in a parish even though I didn't totally jive with a certain priest's flavor of theology because the benefits of the church community outwieghed the ideological disagreements I had with the priest.

I don't claim to know exactly what Obama was exposed to in his church over the years. My guess is that his decision to join that church as an aspiring community activist and politician was orginally influenced at least partly by political expediency. But I can definitely imagine a myriad of reasons why he would remain part of community that had a lot more to it than what we have seen repeated over and over on cable news.

Hawk Believer
06-03-2008, 01:45 AM
One thing about liberation theology is that it often relinquishes the exclusivity of Christ and moves to a universal salvation, which opens up the practitioners to identify themselves in a variety of ways.


If you have a couple minutes to expand on that further I would really appreciate hear more.

KeiselPower99
06-03-2008, 01:57 AM
The man is not qualified to run America. Period end of story.

steelwall
06-03-2008, 01:58 AM
All I can say is that if I went to a Church and the pastor made racist statements, I would attend another church, not stay there for 20 years. Im sure there's other churches in the area.

Preacher
06-03-2008, 02:10 AM
If you have a couple minutes to expand on that further I would really appreciate hear more.

Sure.

Liberation theology, at its core, is a teaching that salvation is an economic salvation where the poor and underclass are saved from the oppression of the ruling class. In this model, Jesus is seen not as a spiritual messiah, but as an economic messiah which came to free the oppressed.

As a result, it does not take a personal faith in Jesus Christ to be free from sin, it takes a throwing off of the oppression to be saved, as salvation is freedom from that oppression.

Now, that theology has morphed into multiple types of liberation theology.

One type is now called black liberation theology. The most important aspect of this theology is the removal of opression... since salvific christology is limited to only economics, a person who claims Jesus through liberation theology can beleive that there are multiple ways to heaven, and that they may worship God in multiple ways, as jesus was mainly a good moral teacher concerning economics.

Now, many black preachers will mix that with traditional christianity to form a hi-bred. others won't, even others will hold to both tradition christianity AND focus on black liberation theology and the teaching of Jesus that concerns economics... but also hold to tradition theology.

I beleive this last one is what Rev. Wright holds to, at least from what I have read on his website. And truly, I think he has more than anything else, backdoored his way into liberation theology.

However, it is there, and it is racist by type, as it focuses on race in its inception.

TroysBadDawg
06-03-2008, 08:17 AM
You can discuss this until the cows come home but the fact remains he was a member of this church for over 20 years, considered its Pastor his mentor, but when the preachers passion against America became national news and was on sound bites everywhere, his membership became a problem. Not because what is taught there, not because he disagrees with what is taught and preached there, but it was casting a light on him that he didn't like. There was a quote from Obama that said he was leaving the church because there was a undo strain on the members of the church or some such.

How about the undo strain on his patriotism, that is taught in the church. How about the extreme writings of his wife who openly said she was opposed to the USA until he started winning primaries now she tempers down.

I don't trust him and can not in clear conscious vote for him or anyone like him, no matter of race color or creed.

You can call me a racist because of that and I don't care.

But tell me this, why is it a hate crime only when it is a Caucasian against a person of color, and not when it is a person of color against a Caucasian? Why does it being out the black preachers when a white cop shoots a black person, but ignored when a balck cop shoots a white person.

Why the double standard?

I was taught the laws were for everyone not just a few, but more and more they are for the few and not all.

Atlanta Dan
06-03-2008, 09:31 AM
But tell me this, why is it a hate crime only when it is a Caucasian against a person of color, and not when it is a person of color against a Caucasian? Why does it being out the black preachers when a white cop shoots a black person, but ignored when a balck cop shoots a white person.

Why the double standard?

I was taught the laws were for everyone not just a few, but more and more they are for the few and not all.

While singling out crimes motivated by racial animus for harsher punishment may be bad public policy, there is not a double standard - the hate crimes law punishes certain crimes motivated by the race of the victim. It is not only limited to crimes committed against non-whites

18 U.S.C. section 245, and similar state criminal statutes, make it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm

For an analysis upholding the constitutionality of these sorts of statutes, you might want to read the linked opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) - then again, maybe you would prefer not to

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=508&invol=476

GBMelBlount
06-03-2008, 09:49 AM
I just don't see why a "hate crime" should be viewed any differently than other crimes..

X-Terminator
06-03-2008, 10:01 AM
While singling out crimes motivated by racial animus for harsher punishment may be bad public policy, there is not a double standard - the hate crimes law punishes certain crimes motivated by the race of the victim. It is not only limited to crimes committed against non-whites

18 U.S.C. section 245, and similar state criminal statutes, make it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.htm

For an analysis upholding the constitutionality of these sorts of statutes, you might want to read the linked opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) - then again, maybe you would prefer not to

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=508&invol=476

That's all well and good, but the problem is that most often, it is applied to crimes against non-whites.

As for the issue of black racism, I can tell you first-hand that it is FAR worse than anyone here realizes. The most virulent racists I've ever encountered have been black, and that's despite spending 3 years in West Virginia. They are very open about their dislike and distrust of white people, and most I have talked to who are voting for Obama are only doing so because he's black. Not everyone in the black community is like that, don't get me wrong, but it is a big problem.

Dino 6 Rings
06-03-2008, 10:33 AM
Obama talks about change in Washington. Yet he started going to this church why? Most likely, because as an aspiring politician, it was wise of him to do so. It gave him access to the community, made him part of the same community that he would need when he started running for office. This was a well thought out plan. Become a member of a very powerful church in the Chicago area, have the Preacher of that church build you up to the community, have the community get in your corner and vote you into office. Then, we the truth about what is said in that Church starts to come out, does Obama stand behind it, say he has gone to that Church for 20 years because they speak the way his heart feels? No, instead he throws that Church, and basically the community under the bus because its Politically wise to do so at this time.

Doesn't sound like change to me, sounds no different than any other politician I've seen come down the pipeline talking about "change".

Here's a change. Rule 1, Term Limits on all forms of held office. No more Lifetime Politicians. The system was set up for Citizens to run the government for a few years, then go back to their private lives and allow other Citizens to take over. Not this carreer politician crap that we have nowadays.

Raising millions and millions of dollars and spending millions and millions of dollars to win office, why? Because there is more to be made being a politician in Washington than in the private sector for most of these fools. Not all, but most.

It sickens me how this entire campaign season has taken over the media. I blame all of them, CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC for giving us a "reality" show election coverage. Its such a joke.

Obama is a left winger, believes in socialism and "it takes a village". I can't vote for him. McCain, is in the middle, and has very questionable Policies in regards to the borders and big government. Clinton, ugh, please no more of them, please.

Where is the third party when we need them. Where are the "Citizens" that should be running this country not the big spenders and deep pocket crooks and hacks?

Rome...all over again.

steelwall
06-03-2008, 01:09 PM
Obama talks about change in Washington. Yet he started going to this church why? Most likely, because as an aspiring politician, it was wise of him to do so. It gave him access to the community, made him part of the same community that he would need when he started running for office. This was a well thought out plan. Become a member of a very powerful church in the Chicago area, have the Preacher of that church build you up to the community, have the community get in your corner and vote you into office. Then, we the truth about what is said in that Church starts to come out, does Obama stand behind it, say he has gone to that Church for 20 years because they speak the way his heart feels? No, instead he throws that Church, and basically the community under the bus because its Politically wise to do so at this time.

Doesn't sound like change to me, sounds no different than any other politician I've seen come down the pipeline talking about "change".

Here's a change. Rule 1, Term Limits on all forms of held office. No more Lifetime Politicians. The system was set up for Citizens to run the government for a few years, then go back to their private lives and allow other Citizens to take over. Not this carreer politician crap that we have nowadays.

Raising millions and millions of dollars and spending millions and millions of dollars to win office, why? Because there is more to be made being a politician in Washington than in the private sector for most of these fools. Not all, but most.

It sickens me how this entire campaign season has taken over the media. I blame all of them, CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC for giving us a "reality" show election coverage. Its such a joke.

Obama is a left winger, believes in socialism and "it takes a village". I can't vote for him. McCain, is in the middle, and has very questionable Policies in regards to the borders and big government. Clinton, ugh, please no more of them, please.

Where is the third party when we need them. Where are the "Citizens" that should be running this country not the big spenders and deep pocket crooks and hacks?

Rome...all over again.

Great post...... This is what kinda gets me about Bush. Everyone allways babbles and pokes fun at his IQ, which is more than likely higher than the fun pokers.

Being a serviceman and under the command of Bush I had my own disagreements with some of his foriegn policy, but as a soldier you do what you are told, politics has no bearing at the task at hand.

I will say this...perhaps Bush is a regular Joe......but isnt that what America was founded on? Were, anyone could be president? Like I said my main quarlms with Bush is foreign policy, but I do have a great deal of respect for the man......why

He's not afraid to go against the grain, because it's what he thinks is right. Is that what a leader is supposed to do? Sorry, but I can't respect a leader that goes with which ever way the political wind blows. To me thats a puppet, not a leader. (i.e. leaving a Church after 20 years because it may hurt your chances at being president)

What I've learned about people in foreign countries that I've been deployed to, is that they respect power.....point blank. When Bush flew the jet onto the aircraft carrier...... this scared the sh@! out of our enemys.... I know.....I talked to our inturpreturs, and regular folk at the time. This action was actually very smart, if you know oue enemy.

Many in the US denounced this action, and still do. My arguement could go on and on, but before the myriad of negative posts, let me first warn you.....I was on the front lines in afgan, and iraq, and I did my part. If you were sitting at home watchining CNN or in some liberal college course, don't even think about it.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-03-2008, 01:13 PM
Great post...... This is what kinda gets me about Bush. Everyone allways babbles and pokes fun at his IQ, which is more than likely higher than the fun pokers.

Being a serviceman and under the command of Bush I had my own disagreements with some of his foriegn policy, but as a soldier you do what you are told, politics has no bearing at the task at hand.

I will say this...perhaps Bush is a regular Joe......but isnt that what America was founded on? Were, anyone could be president? Like I said my main quarlms with Bush is foreign policy, but I do have a great deal of respect for the man......why

He's not afraid to go against the grain, because it's what he thinks is right. Is that what a leader is supposed to do? Sorry, but I can't respect a leader that goes with which ever way the political wind blows. To me thats a puppet, not a leader. (i.e. leaving a Church after 20 years because it may hurt your chances at being president)

What I've learned about people in foreign countries that I've been deployed to, is that they respect power.....point blank. When Bush flew the jet onto the aircraft carrier...... this scared the sh@! out of our enemys.... I know.....I talked to our inturpreturs, and regular folk at the time. This action was actually very smart, if you know oue enemy.

Many in the US denounced this action, and still do. My arguement could go on and on, but before the myriad of negative posts, let me first warn you.....I was on the front lines in afgan, and iraq, and I did my part. If you were sitting at home watchining CNN or in some liberal college course, don't even think about it.

Great Posts by Dino and Steelwall!!!

I think you both touched on the common sense aspect of politics that is often overlooked by too many Americans..thumbs up to both of you!!!!
(I spent time on the front line in Desert Storm...I know what you mean brother!)

GBMelBlount
06-03-2008, 01:19 PM
What I've learned about people in foreign countries that I've been deployed to, is that they respect power.....point blank.

I agree.

Did you know Nancy Pelosi has credited much of the progress in the middle east to the noble country of Iran?......while downplaying what our troops and General "Betrayus" have accomplished?

Hawk Believer
06-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Here's a change. Rule 1, Term Limits on all forms of held office. No more Lifetime Politicians. The system was set up for Citizens to run the government for a few years, then go back to their private lives and allow other Citizens to take over. Not this carreer politician crap that we have nowadays.

Raising millions and millions of dollars and spending millions and millions of dollars to win office, why? Because there is more to be made being a politician in Washington than in the private sector for most of these fools. Not all, but most.



Term Limits are something I struggle with. Prolonged incumbency definitely has some really bad aspects to it. But at the same time its good to people who know what they are doing running federal committees. Maybe we should have term limits after, say 4 House terms and 2 Senate terms, but allow the congressman or woman to run again after they sit out a term... What really drives me crazy is when people run on a term limit platform and decide to change their mind once they are in. That happened out in Spokane - a guy named Nethercutt unseated the Speaker of the House Tom Foley during the Republican revolution back in 94. The biggest thing he ran on was term limits and how he was going to step down after 2 terms. Once the 4 years had passed, he said he realized he needed to stay longer to utilize his experience to serve his country better.....And he got re-elected.

I totally agree with you that there is way too much money in campaigns. Its such a waste. I wish there was a way to put a cap on all campaign spending and just give the candidates free air time... Problem is I haven't seen a plan to do that that doesn't violate the first amendment. Its a dilema.

The other thing that drives me crazy is pork spending. That is one thing that I am very hopeful about if McCain gets elected. I have an inkling of hope that he may be at a point in his career that he may really be able to make a significant change to the pork culture of DC as well as corporate welfare. But I could also see him doing nothing about it once he is in too. But that would be my hope!

steelwall
06-03-2008, 01:40 PM
I agree.

Did you know Nancy Pelosi has credited much of the progress in the middle east to the noble country of Iran?......while downplaying what our troops and General "Betrayus" have accomplished?


Exactly, Pelosi is an idiot who doesnt know the first thing about what the average Arab thinks. Im sorry if I sound racist as I am truely not, those here that know me know that I am not.

But......why did Iraqis surrender by the thousands to US troops?, Because of Iran....LMFAO... no

Again, our enemies respect power, and this respect deters many of them from trying to face our forces on the feild. Why was suicide bombings adopted by our foes? Truth..... they could not match our tactics.

IMO at this point in the world America is in need of a strong leader, one our eniemies fear..... dont think for one second they wouldnt play on a leader considered a "whimm follower" .

America....... we are not safe.... our enimies are looking for any chance they can get....Trust me...

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Exactly, Pelosi is an idiot who doesnt know the first thing about what the average Arab thinks. Im sorry if I sound racist as I am truely not, those here that know me know that I am not.

But......why did Iraqis surrender by the thousands to US troops?, Because of Iran....LMFAO... no

Again, our enemies respect power, and this respect deters many of them from trying to face our forces on the feild. Why was suicide bombings adopted by our foes? Truth..... they could not match our tactics.

IMO at this point in the world America is in need of a strong leader, one our eniemies fear..... dont think for one second they wouldnt play on a leader considered a "whimm follower" .

America....... we are not safe.... our enimies are looking for any chance they can get....Trust me...


I have been told by those who lean considerably in the other direction than I...that Obama's muslim background (no...I am not saying that HE is muslim)..will benefit him in the middle east.

I guess they forget that these terrorists KILL muslims who dont agree with their ideology!!!:doh:

Dino 6 Rings
06-03-2008, 02:30 PM
Pelosi gives credit to Iran for helping solve the Iraq "issue".

really Nancy...really? That whole "the US is Satanic" and "Israel will be destroyed" can be completely ignored and they can have credit for NOT shooting at our Troops in a country the Iranian army shouldn't be in to begin with?

Really Nancy? Like...Really?

Preacher
06-03-2008, 07:40 PM
Term Limits are something I struggle with. Prolonged incumbency definitely has some really bad aspects to it. But at the same time its good to people who know what they are doing running federal committees. Maybe we should have term limits after, say 4 House terms and 2 Senate terms, but allow the congressman or woman to run again after they sit out a term... What really drives me crazy is when people run on a term limit platform and decide to change their mind once they are in. That happened out in Spokane - a guy named Nethercutt unseated the Speaker of the House Tom Foley during the Republican revolution back in 94. The biggest thing he ran on was term limits and how he was going to step down after 2 terms. Once the 4 years had passed, he said he realized he needed to stay longer to utilize his experience to serve his country better.....And he got re-elected.

I totally agree with you that there is way too much money in campaigns. Its such a waste. I wish there was a way to put a cap on all campaign spending and just give the candidates free air time... Problem is I haven't seen a plan to do that that doesn't violate the first amendment. Its a dilema.

The other thing that drives me crazy is pork spending. That is one thing that I am very hopeful about if McCain gets elected. I have an inkling of hope that he may be at a point in his career that he may really be able to make a significant change to the pork culture of DC as well as corporate welfare. But I could also see him doing nothing about it once he is in too. But that would be my hope!

Thats my home town.

He said that he realized in Washington D.C., everything is driven on time in office, so he couldn't step down because that wasn't how the system worked.

I said then, what a joke. He should have stayed out for an election cycle, and then ran again, this time NOT on term limits. He probably would have been elected. Instead, he broke his promise.

Hawk Believer
06-03-2008, 08:37 PM
Sure.

Liberation theology, at its core, is a teaching that salvation is an economic salvation where the poor and underclass are saved from the oppression of the ruling class. In this model, Jesus is seen not as a spiritual messiah, but as an economic messiah which came to free the oppressed.

As a result, it does not take a personal faith in Jesus Christ to be free from sin, it takes a throwing off of the oppression to be saved, as salvation is freedom from that oppression.

Now, that theology has morphed into multiple types of liberation theology.

One type is now called black liberation theology. The most important aspect of this theology is the removal of opression... since salvific christology is limited to only economics, a person who claims Jesus through liberation theology can beleive that there are multiple ways to heaven, and that they may worship God in multiple ways, as jesus was mainly a good moral teacher concerning economics.

Now, many black preachers will mix that with traditional christianity to form a hi-bred. others won't, even others will hold to both tradition christianity AND focus on black liberation theology and the teaching of Jesus that concerns economics... but also hold to tradition theology.

I beleive this last one is what Rev. Wright holds to, at least from what I have read on his website. And truly, I think he has more than anything else, backdoored his way into liberation theology.

However, it is there, and it is racist by type, as it focuses on race in its inception.
Interesting stuff. How far back does liberation theology go? Is it rooted in slavery? Would you say the economic aspects are tied into the "prosperity Gospel" or "Gospel of wealth" that seems to be so popular in large scale evangelical churches these days?

steelwall
06-03-2008, 08:57 PM
Interesting stuff. How far back does liberation theology go? Is it rooted in slavery? Would you say the economic aspects are tied into the "prosperity Gospel" or "Gospel of wealth" that seems to be so popular in large scale evangelical churches these days?


What are hopeing to acheive by asking these questions? He explained its ideology very in depth IMO, go do your own research if you want to know more. Seems to me you are fishing for something.

Hawk Believer
06-03-2008, 09:32 PM
My sincerest apologies Steelwall for trying to engage in a reasonable conversation with someone who I could learn something from. And on a public internet forum of all places!

I found Preacher's comments to be really interesting. It made me think of things I have read regarding slavery and Christianity. That is, the irony that slave owners exposed and sometimes encouraged a Christian faith in thier slaves that ultimately helped sustain and empower them to believe they were equal in the eyes of God. A lot of slaves and their decendants really connected with the story of Moses leading the Isrealites from Egypt. I am wondering if the current brand of liberation theology seperatist movment that Preacher described could be a bastardized permutation of the orginal Christian movement of Africans enslaved in the US.

So I thought I might ask Preacher, a guy who I don't always agree with but absolutely respect from his postings here, if he could share a little of his knowledge on the topic.

Sorry I didn't run it by you first Steelwall. Would you like me to PM you potential posts so you can edit them for me before the are published here? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I assumed a less nuianced, bomb throwing troll persona here?

Eagerly awaiting Steelwall's guidance - HB

steelwall
06-03-2008, 11:37 PM
My sincerest apologies Steelwall for trying to engage in a reasonable conversation with someone who I could learn something from. And on a public internet forum of all places!

I found Preacher's comments to be really interesting. It made me think of things I have read regarding slavery and Christianity. That is, the irony that slave owners exposed and sometimes encouraged a Christian faith in thier slaves that ultimately helped sustain and empower them to believe they were equal in the eyes of God. A lot of slaves and their decendants really connected with the story of Moses leading the Isrealites from Egypt. I am wondering if the current brand of liberation theology seperatist movment that Preacher described could be a bastardized permutation of the orginal Christian movement of Africans enslaved in the US.

So I thought I might ask Preacher, a guy who I don't always agree with but absolutely respect from his postings here, if he could share a little of his knowledge on the topic.

Sorry I didn't run it by you first Steelwall. Would you like me to PM you potential posts so you can edit them for me before the are published here? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if I assumed a less nuianced, bomb throwing troll persona here?

Eagerly awaiting Steelwall's guidance - HB

Ok you want to engage in a debate or perhaps more acuratly you want to learn something. Books, websites, even TV specials... thats how you learn. You asked preacher to expand on his explination and he did. You came back with more questions. I can't speak for The preacher but I'd say he pretty mush explained everything to you in great detail.

You want all your knowledge from the preacher? My guess is you're fishing and you know it.

If I want to learn about things I read books.....ect. My problem is you are either to lazy to do your own research, or you're fishing. I never said you were a troll... but how much more clearly can the ideology be explained to you?

Preacher
06-04-2008, 02:14 AM
Interesting stuff. How far back does liberation theology go? Is it rooted in slavery? Would you say the economic aspects are tied into the "prosperity Gospel" or "Gospel of wealth" that seems to be so popular in large scale evangelical churches these days?

Liberation theology has it roots in classic european liberalism and the moral understanding of the atonement of Christ.

Guiterez (sp) was the first to really articulate it out of the catholic church and mainly in central America.in the early 70's. It mixed marxism and christianity. It died as an official theological movement within the catholic church in the 80s. However, it has expanded far beyond that. It actually has nothing to do with the health and wealth doctrines in some american strands. Matter of fact, they would probably look at that doctrine with disdain.

Dino 6 Rings
06-04-2008, 09:18 AM
So me and my kids were watching Hannah Montana last night and started to sing together...oh my bad...wrong thread..

TroysBadDawg
06-04-2008, 10:06 AM
Term limits passed by Congressional vote in 1997 only to be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court. IT was the Republicans that pushed for it, then a professional Congressman (R) went to the Supreme court to have it thrown out.
link (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-5.html)

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-04-2008, 10:07 AM
Liberation theology has it roots in classic european liberalism and the moral understanding of the atonement of Christ.

Guiterez (sp) was the first to really articulate it out of the catholic church and mainly in central America.in the early 70's. It mixed marxism and christianity. It died as an official theological movement within the catholic church in the 80s. However, it has expanded far beyond that. It actually has nothing to do with the health and wealth doctrines in some american strands. Matter of fact, they would probably look at that doctrine with disdain.

Please correct me if I am wrong Preacher...but I see a reoccuring theme in liberation theology that goes against the basic truths of Christianity.

1) Salvation through Liberation Theology seems to be liberation from injustice ....not a personal turning away from sin. Thus it seems to be more about freeing yourself from others instead of looking inside and gaining a personal relationship with Christ allowing Him to free us through the shed blood of his sacrifice...or to put it another way...The liberation theology concept of salvation is defined in more collective terms to the exclusion of individual redemption.

2) Personal sin seems to be defined in Liberation Theology as the result of oppressive political and social structures....therefore making individuals less responsible for their actions and even excusing some sins because individuals are left with "no choice".

3) The "mission" of the church seems to be more focused on liberation from society rather than in proclaiming the Good News of Christ.

4) The concept of equality and dealing with adversity seems to have been changed in Liberation Theology...One of the fundamental messages of the Bible is how to live with and under adversity.... in this life there is a measure of sickness,oppression, poverty, tyranny and injustice...sometimes God uses these things as a part of His disciplinary plan for His people. God never promises us that he will save us from the fiery furnace..but rather promises that He will be there with us during these trials.
The positive values of suffering,trials and "bearing the cross" seem to be overlooked or minimized.

Again..I am sorry if I have oversimplified things..but would appreciate your view.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-04-2008, 10:08 AM
So me and my kids were watching Hannah Montana last night and started to sing together...oh my bad...wrong thread..

:whistle: ...the best of both worlds....:whistle:

Preacher
06-04-2008, 04:45 PM
Please correct me if I am wrong Preacher...but I see a reoccuring theme in liberation theology that goes against the basic truths of Christianity.

1) Salvation through Liberation Theology seems to be liberation from injustice ....not a personal turning away from sin. Thus it seems to be more about freeing yourself from others instead of looking inside and gaining a personal relationship with Christ allowing Him to free us through the shed blood of his sacrifice...or to put it another way...The liberation theology concept of salvation is defined in more collective terms to the exclusion of individual redemption.

2) Personal sin seems to be defined in Liberation Theology as the result of oppressive political and social structures....therefore making individuals less responsible for their actions and even excusing some sins because individuals are left with "no choice".

3) The "mission" of the church seems to be more focused on liberation from society rather than in proclaiming the Good News of Christ.

4) The concept of equality and dealing with adversity seems to have been changed in Liberation Theology...One of the fundamental messages of the Bible is how to live with and under adversity.... in this life there is a measure of sickness,oppression, poverty, tyranny and injustice...sometimes God uses these things as a part of His disciplinary plan for His people. God never promises us that he will save us from the fiery furnace..but rather promises that He will be there with us during these trials.
The positive values of suffering,trials and "bearing the cross" seem to be overlooked or minimized.

Again..I am sorry if I have oversimplified things..but would appreciate your view.

that is a pretty good rendition of liberation theology.

But remember that it now has many hybrids, some of which actually marry what you said to true christianity... thus, those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and ask for personal forgiveness of their sins are now responsible for not only bringing others to Christ, but correcting the overall social injustice to that race... which is where rev. Wright seems to be coming from.

I do beleive Wright is a beleiver in Jesus Christ, and that he teaches a true gospel. It is just that he ADDS to the work of the Christiani a racial component which is very scary.

Hawk Believer
06-04-2008, 06:37 PM
Ok you want to engage in a debate or perhaps more acuratly you want to learn something. Books, websites, even TV specials... thats how you learn. You asked preacher to expand on his explination and he did. You came back with more questions. I can't speak for The preacher but I'd say he pretty mush explained everything to you in great detail.
You say you can't speak for others but then proceed to attempt to do just that? Interesting. Again, why are you so against people interacting. The response Preacher wrote provoked more questions from me and you criticize me for that?

When an interesting topic was brought up in this thread, I asked the author to expand on it. Usually in forums like this people are interested in participating in exchange. If people don't want to participate further, they can say so or just not respond. Getting opinions from people who know more than you about certain topics is actually a pretty good way to augement what you get off of TV and the internet. Perhaps you could benefit from trying it sometime. But you seem to have the arrogance to elevate yourself to being the arbiter of what we can talk about.

You want all your knowledge from the preacher?
Holy hyperbole Batman! Um, no I don't want all my knowledge from him. I don't think I would turn to him for guidance on a chemotherapy program. But he sure think he'd be a good guy to discuss theology, politics, and history with over a beer.

My guess is you're fishing and you know it. What exactly do you mean by fishing? Why are dripping with so much cynicism?

If I want to learn about things I read books.....ect. Congratulations! You just narrowed your didactic experiences to books and....etc. Might human interaction be a source of knowledge for you? I hope so. Must be part of the etc.

My problem is you are either to lazy to do your own research, or you're fishing.Well, thats quite a distillation you have produced there. I am either lazy or "fishing" . So the act interacting with others on an internet forum means that I am either lazy or engaging in some nefarious yet undefined "fishing."
I never said you were a troll... Um, you accused me of "fishing." Again, I am curious to hear your definition of fishing in the context of a forum discussion. I would share with you the etymologic origins of the word troll, but I know how you think its disgraceful to learn from other people; the horror! But to give you a headstart when you go to look it up, start under the heading of "fishing."

but how much more clearly can the ideology be explained to you?[/
Well,this was a start....
Liberation theology has it roots in classic european liberalism and the moral understanding of the atonement of Christ.

Guiterez (sp) was the first to really articulate it out of the catholic church and mainly in central America.in the early 70's. It mixed marxism and christianity. It died as an official theological movement within the catholic church in the 80s. However, it has expanded far beyond that. It actually has nothing to do with the health and wealth doctrines in some american strands. Matter of fact, they would probably look at that doctrine with disdain.

Again, I apologize for have spurred more topical discussion. I really did not know how upsetting it was going to be for you.