No. I had some familiarity with black liberation theology before this mess, having followed the Cornel West row with Lawrence Summers in particular. The preaching of Wright seemed instantly familiar after that.
I haven’t in these threads been prepared to judge Wright on the basis of soundbites, but I recognize that these soundbites aren’t atypical, but representative. The man isn’t controversial for nothing, and a young and somewhat rootless Barack Obama would have found his message very compelling - by his own admission. I have stated before that I understand this - in this period Obama was trying to connect with his black identity, and whatever Wright is, he is indeed black.
We’re getting several degrees of separation away from Obama here, but 1.) those quotations are not verifiably as having been said by Cone and are probably spurious and 2.) Were certainly not said by Wright, so they’re irrelevant to the conversation.
That’s from the unverified quote. The other (and where did you get it, BTW?) says:
Which does not merit your characterization:
It doesn’t. Read it again. (BTW, I’m familiar with a lot of Christian heresies and I don’t see how what you’re describing ranks as “one of the most common forms.”)
I don’t think many people who have paid any attention to the primary process would consider Obama a racist. I think the question is how much does he wrap himself in afro-centrism. I think this is the problem with his association with Wright. I think his wife doesn’t help him in this regard. There was her statement about her not previously being proud of her country. And her college thesis, *Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community *tend to put the Obamas in that apparent mindset. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with black studies, but I think the fact is that people want a President that represents all of them. Not one who they might feel has a race-based agenda. So, while I do not think Obama to be a racist, given his liberal politics and Wright and his wife, I do get the impression that he will lead as a Black President more than a President who just happens to be black.
And that is one reason he will lose if he gets the nomination.
Before we get too far afield, I’d still ove to see some evidence that Jeremiah Wright holds any racist or anti-white views. Even assuming, hypothetically, that Jeremiah Wright ever quoted from or attributed personal inspiration to a person who ever himself expressed racist attitudes, it still does not prove Wright himself is a racist. Thomas Jefferson was a racist. Many politicians qute Thomas Jefferson or refer to him as an inspiration. Are all those people therefore racists?
BrainGlutton From the Spengler article in question. Here is the footnote.
As for heresies. One of the cornerstones of the Christian religion is universalism, IE that Jesus isn’t for your tribe. This can be pointed out through the ‘I come not to bring peace but a sword, turn Brother against Sister’ etc… in the book of Matthew. To say that Christ is for YOUR tribe, is heretical. It doesn’t come under the category of heresies that are specifically declared or put down because it is so common. Many tribes and people have tried to paganize the gospels in such a way as it defines their particular people as ‘the chosen people’. In my opinion the Catholic Church is the Mother of all Paganistic Heretical misappropriations of the gospel for political purposes, but in the end all of these things serve a purpose as the mission of Christ is a process of conversion, not something that suddenly happens. One day you get your head dunked under the water and suddenly you and all your pals are universally tolerant. However, it is retrogressive to think that Christ somehow favors your people over other peoples. Christ was there to save ALL peoples, not black people, not white people, not Jews, not Europeans.
That being said, I still interpret the first quotation as such, that he is trying to ethnicize the gospel, which is in and of itself both heretical and racist.
Thomas Jefferson never took pride in his racism, or said that it was something to be emulated. He was so radical that he thought it was unfair influence for the older generation to impose it’s views upon successive generations. That is hardly the same as saying, “Christ favors black people over white people.”
Don’t you listen to Pat Buchanan? If a black person has any actual interest in his African heritage or his heritage of slavery and second-class citizenship, he has a race-based agenda. He or she is supposed to think like a white man and considers him or herself lucky for the slavery their ancestors endured because it brought them to this glorious American paradise, where they became full citizens (after several hundred years, a major schismatic war, and another century of violence, oppression and muttered excuses and misdirection by the white people they’re supposed to be so grateful to).
I don’t see how attempting to contort the meaning of “racist” is helpful to the discussion in any way. You can correctly describe Jefferson as a “racist”. But you know it has little to do with what is meant when someone in today’s society is considered a racist. Or you should.
This is specious. He never expressed any shame in it or said that anyone should not agree with him. He just assumed it was an uncontroversial fact that blacks were inferior to whites (his own jungle fever notwithstanding).
He did not express this sentiment in relationship to slavery but as a philsophical opinion in general.
You still have not proven either that Cone said those things (and Spengler is hardly a reliable source) or that Wright himself believes them. The quotation about Jesus being “black” was clearly framed as being metaphorical.
His opposition to slavery was not grounded in any belief in racial equality. In his writings, he clearly and unambiguously expressed his opinion that blacks were inferior to whites and did so in terms that are as appalling as anything you’d ever see on Stormfront today.