From CNN:
Most Americans think of King as the "I Have a Dream" preacher at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. But the man who made his final trip to Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968 had become radical, scholars and activists say. King was gambling his legacy on a final crusade that was so revolutionary, it alarmed many of his closest advisers. Some became concerned about his emotional stability.
King called his crusade the Poor People's Campaign. He planned to march on Washington with a multiracial army of poor people who would build shantytowns at the Lincoln Memorial -- and paralyze the nation's capital if they had to.
The campaign's goal: force the federal government to withdraw funding for the Vietnam War and commit instead to abolishing poverty.
What King was saying by this time was even more provocative than what he planned. In his final presidential address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he said the movement should address "the question of restructuring the whole of American society."
He called for a guaranteed annual wage for all able-bodied people, he urged the nationalization of some industries, and he told people to "question the capitalistic economy..."
The Poor People's Campaign has faded from historical memory. It remains the most overlooked part of King's legacy, Wilkins said.
It remains in the shadows because King rewrote the traditional civil rights script, Wilkins said. As long as he fed Americans images of bigoted Southern sheriffs clubbing demonstrators, people could remain comfortable. But the Poor People's Campaign gave Americans a new cast of villains: themselves. Americans didn't want to look at the face of poverty, but King was going to force them, he said.
"When the movement was just about the South, you weren't rattling the status quo," Wilkins said. 'You were doing things that made Northerners feel morally superior to the South."
=====
And, as an aside, I'll remind us that this was the man who was spied upon by his own gov't, who actively were looking for ways to undermine him? Keep this in mind when tempted to condemn preachers such as Reverend Wright for not trusting the US government.
Having said that, I'll also note that the latest polls show Obama with a double digit lead over Hillary nationally amongst likely Democrat voters. I think the People have listened to the Wright criticisms and made up their mind that it's not a significant issue (or perhaps it IS a significant reason to vote FOR Obama).
And, as an aside, I'll remind us that this was the man who was spied upon by his own gov't, who actively were looking for ways to undermine him? Keep this in mind when tempted to condemn preachers such as Reverend Wright for not trusting the US government.
ReplyDeleteI missed the part where Martin Luther King called for the damnation of America, accused the U.S. government of inventing diseases in order to hurt Black Americans, accused Israel of launching terrorist attacks on the U.S., and sympathized with terrorist organizations committed to the extermination of Israel.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteWhile the government might not have invented diseases in order to hurt Black Americans, they did "Treat" or not treat diseases to see the "full effects" while telling the participants that they were getting full treatment and thereby infecting thier wives but also thier children. It was called the Tuskegee Experiment and it is well documented.
Thanks, Ayannali and welcome to Payne Hollow.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I'm just saying that I think for many of our white brothers and sisters, Wright just sounded crazy. But for many of our black brothers and sisters and those in solidarity with them, it did not seem beyond reason.
And those few on the Right that are still riled up about Wright are failing to see the difference.
Dan, let's grant that some people actually believe the slander that the U.S. government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't follow that it's charitable to indulge their continued believing in such a ridiculous and dangerous lie, and to enable that lie by suggesting, as you did earlier, that it is Wright's critics (and not Wright) who is guilty of villification and bearing false witness.
It's not charitable to the poor individuals who believe that garbage, as it reinforces the idea that they are not responsible for their own lives. And it's not charitable to everyone else, because healthy race relations cannot be based on such inflammatory lies.
Applied to different circumstances, your argument would mean that Jews must come to understand that some Arabs really do believe that they use Gentile blood in their Passover ceremonies, and that it is the Jews who are wrong for daring to criticize the demagogues whose goal can only be to incite a literally murderous rage.
King was a great man, a true American patriot. It’s unfortunate that the powers that be sinfully tried to quiet an everlasting voice for freedom. Yes, he made some poor choices but his life shouldn’t be judged totally on those particular choices. We have a systemic problem in American society with character assassination. The truth of King’s story is that he wasn’t killed trying to integrate; he was assassinated due to his wanting to correct the distribution of wealth in America. This act of terror shows where the true racism & injustice lies, in the American Financial system. He wanted an overhaul of the entire system, and guess what? They killed him!
ReplyDelete"King was a great man, a true American patriot."
ReplyDeleteHardly, as noted by Dan, King was hardly a patriot. The man was spied on relentlessly. If anything, he was a terrorist. Today, I shudder at the idea of what we may do to somebody like him.
Perhaps one of mistresses would turn up in the public spotlight?
Yes, King was human. And had "positive" and "negative" qualities about his life. I'm not sure if anybody is qualified enough to Judge him. Personally, I try not to be in that business.
"Applied to different circumstances.."
Willie Stargel? Anybody? 'Cause that was a stretch.
Way to go Dan! Defending Wright by throwing rocks at King!
ReplyDeleteThis is a new low for you. Defending one black man, because of political expediency by throwing another black man under the bus.
Again, Way to go!!!
Eric, we were doing so well. Let's not resort to attacking one another again or misrepresenting one another.
ReplyDeleteAssuming it's an honest mistake on your part,I will note that I have cast not a single stone at King. I honor King as a prophet and good fella. Not as a perfect man, as noted by Ben, but a good man and a great leader.
Out of curiosity, where do you see me casting a stone? I quoted an article in an effort to point out a part of King's legacy that is often forgotten or hidden.
And then I noted how the US gov't spied on him. How is that casting a stone at King??
Assuming you don't have an answer - that is, if you misspoke or misunderstood my words somehow - you don't have to respond. We'll recognize a no response as an apology and graciously forgive you.
Welcome to Payne Hollow, Ben.
Assuming you don't have an answer - that is, if you misspoke or misunderstood my words somehow - you don't have to respond. We'll recognize a no response as an apology and graciously forgive you.
ReplyDeleteA guy who has repeatedly insisted that others shouldn't read into his words anything beyond what's explicitly there, has now defined graciousness as reading into silence an unqualified apology.
While there isn't enough criticism in this piece for Wright's rhetorical excesses--though I'd still like to see the sermon in context, I can't imagine that context will help his claim that the government is infecting black folks (or anyone else) with AIDS--I think your comparison between Wright & King has some merit.
ReplyDelete(Having seen more complete clips of his "damning" & "chickens" statements, I am far less offended by them than I was, and wonder whether my impression of the others would change if I saw them in context, as well.)
Bubba's point is also pretty good, though... Where Wright is being blatantly dishonest or racist, we need to speak out against such words. (I don't know for certain what Obama did or did not hear Wright say, but I would hope & pray that he did--or at least will do, in future--the same.)
Far from throwing rocks at King (or saying he was in any way unpatriotic) I believe the original post speaks well of King, and further extols the virtues of an already good man. While he is most remembered for his stand against racism, he also stood up against the Viet Nam war, and against poverty. Whether or not one agreed with his beliefs on those issues, he did take a stand, which--considering how few do, sometimes-- deserves merit in itself. (Personally, the more I learn about King's sociopolitical beliefs, the more I like him, but YMMV...)
Thanks repsac. Here is a link to a place that provides more of one of the sermons and a link to the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteBubba wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't follow that it's charitable to indulge their continued believing in such a ridiculous and dangerous lie, and to enable that lie by suggesting, as you did earlier, that it is Wright's critics (and not Wright) who is guilty of villification and bearing false witness.
It's not charitable to the poor individuals who believe that garbage, as it reinforces the idea that they are not responsible for their own lives. And it's not charitable to everyone else, because healthy race relations cannot be based on such inflammatory lies.
Exactly. However Wright's comments and conspiracy theories can be traced to long-term problems in Black American culture, they still point to very serious problems.
Dan wrote:
John, I'm just saying that I think for many of our white brothers and sisters, Wright just sounded crazy. But for many of our black brothers and sisters and those in solidarity with them, it did not seem beyond reason.
And that is a serious problem, because belief in these crazy ideas necessarily disqualifies one from the Presidency.
Here's an analogy. A number of elderly White Southerners that I know have backward attitudes toward non-Whites. No matter how such attitudes can be explained by upbringing, they still disqualify a person from the Presidency.
And no one, regardless of age or race or anything else, should be trusted with supreme power if they believe crackpot conspiracy theories.
So as Obama called this man his spiritual mentor for twenty years and revered him up until very recently (coincidentally, when Wright came under media scrutiny), it's fair to ask the Senator how he found those comments acceptable and why it took him so long to find them unacceptable.
"And that is a serious problem, because belief in these crazy ideas necessarily disqualifies one from the Presidency."
ReplyDeleteAnd not being able to tell the difference between Rev. Wright and Barack Obama sorta disqualifies one from providing an opinion on the matter, no?
If John were my pastor....which I suppose is possible...since I am a United Methodist....I would hope people could tell the difference between us....because I sure disagree with him on this.
ReplyDeleteThe church is not the pastor. If a person has developed close relationships with people in their congregation, throughout the years, they seldom leave a church because they disagree with the pastor. Pastors come and go.
And not being able to tell the difference between Rev. Wright and Barack Obama sorta disqualifies one from providing an opinion on the matter, no?
ReplyDeleteAs I said, it's quite fair to ask Obama if he agreed with all the crazy things that his spiritual mentor proclaimed. If the answer is yes, then Obama is morally disqualified from the Presidency. If the answer is no, good. But it begs the question why Obama called this crazy man his spiritual mentor for 20 years.
The church is not the pastor. If a person has developed close relationships with people in their congregation, throughout the years, they seldom leave a church because they disagree with the pastor. Pastors come and go.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but this is not the situation with Obama. He did not identify Wright as merely the pastor of his church; he identified Wright as his spiritual mentor.
Why? For myself, anyone who would say such crazy things would never be my spiritual mentor. He might be appointed to my church and be, in a technical sense, my pastor. But he would never be my spiritual mentor.
"As I said, it's quite fair to ask Obama if he agreed with all the crazy things that his spiritual mentor proclaimed."
ReplyDeleteObama was asked. He said no.
Never say "never" John.
Obama credits Wright with leading him to Christ. Perhaps that was the context in which he was speaking of a "spritual" mentor.
ReplyDelete"As I said, it's quite fair to ask Obama if he agreed with all the crazy things that his spiritual mentor proclaimed."
ReplyDeleteHe already answered that. He even gave a detailed speech about it, a speech which has been widely publicized.
Why did it take Obama 20 years -- and a media spotlight and critique of Wright -- to be ready to repudiate him?
ReplyDelete"Why did it take Obama 20 years -- and a media spotlight and critique of Wright -- to be ready to repudiate him?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would Obama make something an issue that was only made an issue because Republicans are looking for ways to smear him? What's he supposed to do, start issuing repudiations for anything said by anyone he has ever known? "Ladies and gentlemen, I just found out that my barbers former wife's sister's cousin's neighbor once called a white guy "cracker". I repudiate this comment."
If you're looking for a reason to dislike Obama I'm sure you can do better than finding something some other guy said that Obama already said he disagreed with. ;)
This wasn't Obama's barbers former wife's sister's cousin's neighbor. This was his spiritual mentor for two decades, by Obama's own description.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Obama make something an issue that was only made an issue because Republicans are looking for ways to smear him?
Is it only an issue because Republicans want to smear him, or is it an issue because Wright's comments are outrageous?
If you're looking for a reason to dislike Obama I'm sure you can do better than finding something some other guy said that Obama already said he disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteObama did say that he disagrees with Wright -- after 20 years and sudden, enormous public pressure to do so.
"Obama did say that he disagrees with Wright -- after 20 years and sudden, enormous public pressure to do so."
ReplyDeleteGee, why did it take 20 years and sudden, enormous public pressure for *you* to say you disagreed with Rev. Wright? Seriously. He's been around for a long time, what have you been waiting for?
Again, this assertion that a politician is going to announce disagreement with something some other person has said, who is completely unrelated to the campaign, even before being asked to do so is a ridiculous and naive. When, in the history of politics, has that EVER happened? LOL "Oh, here, let me bring up a non-issue, so you all can have a feeding frenzy."
Here's the deal, you want him to say he disagrees with Wright. We point out that has. Satisfied? Nope, now you move the goal post. You find something else to be dissatisfied about: he didn't do it sooner. If he'd done it years ago, I'd wager you'd move the goal post again, and find yet something else to be dissatisfied about. Again, if you're looking for a reason to dislike Obama you could do much better.
"Is it only an issue because Republicans want to smear him, or is it an issue because Wright's comments are outrageous?"
I'd say answer A. Obama is no more responsible for Rev. Wright's comments than you are. It's called personal responsibility.
I'll believe any of this is faux-indignation about Wright is perhaps real when people start asking McCain questions about his endorsements from folks like Rev. Hagee or Rev. Rod Parsley. Rev. Parsley, who McCain has called a "spiritual advisor" has said about Islam, "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
Why hasn't McCain said anything about that? Why didn't he say something 20 years ago? LOL
I guess some conservatives don't have a problem with a white minister who says we should destroy Islam --they only get upset if a black minister gets too "uppity" and criticizes white America. Not that they're racists or anything, I'm sure it's only a coincidence. ;)
John, have you ever attended black churches? If you had, you would know this goes on every Sunday.
ReplyDeleteRev. Wright was scheduled to speak at Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church here in Houston last Sunday. From the Houston Chronicle:
"Security concerns have prompted the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to cancel his appearance at Houston's Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church for the first time in two decades.
Wright, who until February was minister of Sen. Barack Obama's church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, was scheduled to preach three guest sermons in Houston on Sunday.
The theologian who Obama has said strengthened his Christian faith has been a regular revival preacher at Wheeler for about 20 years."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5648912.html
I listened to those sermons of Rev. Wright's in their entirety. Did you John? Putting them in context changes things quite a bit.
Alan, there's a tremendous difference between one's pastor deliberately asserting from the pulpit that the government created AIDS as an act of attempt genocide, and the occurence in which one's "barbers former wife's sister's cousin's neighbor once called a white guy 'cracker'".
ReplyDeleteThis attempted equivalence is disgusting. By no means is it as disgusting as Obama's attempt to compare Wright with his own grandmother: I'm able to say that because, like all rational adults, I can differentiate between things.
There is also a difference or two between Obama and John here:
Gee, why did it take 20 years and sudden, enormous public pressure for *you* to say you disagreed with Rev. Wright? Seriously. He's been around for a long time, what have you been waiting for?
John's not running for President, and -- more importantly -- John didn't attend Trinity for two decades, title his book after one of Wright's sermons, give Trinity literally tens of thousands of dollars, and have Jeremiah Wright perform his wedding and baptize his children.
Again, this assertion that a politician is going to announce disagreement with something some other person has said, who is completely unrelated to the campaign, even before being asked to do so is a ridiculous and naive.
Um, Jeremiah Wright has NOT been "completely unrelated" to Obama's campaign. Hence the announcement just last month that Wright is no longer officially a part of that campaign.
I'd say answer A. Obama is no more responsible for Rev. Wright's comments than you are. It's called personal responsibility.
I believe personal responsibility also entails where a person attends church.
To be consistent, Alan, you would have to say that you would have no problem with a Presidential candidate who attended FRED PHELPS' church for twenty years.
Ah, Marty...
ReplyDeleteJohn, have you ever attended black churches? If you had, you would know this goes on every Sunday.
Here we have a perfect example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
No, no, no, no!
ReplyDeleteNO! It's not LOW expectations at all. NO!
It's the reality that some of us don't trust our gov't blindly. Some of my brothers and sisters even believe some conspiracy theories have some creedence. And I STILL look up to them and admire them. I may disagree with them on their more wacky points, but that does not mean that I fail to honor what they say 99% of the time as being prophetic and Christly.
Thinking the moon landing was faked, that's wacky.
ReplyDeleteTelling your impressionable parishioners the government invented AIDS as an act of attempted genocide against blacks -- in the absence of any evidence -- isn't wacky. It's evil.
No matter how much respect you would otherwise have for a person, I'm sure you wouldn't defend his letting slip a racial epithet as a mere idiosyncracy. It's frankly grotesque that you would excuse something far worse: deliberate slander, from the pulpit of God's church, on a level very close to the blood libel against the Jews.
No one's suggesting "blind" trust of the government -- and implying that we are is dishonest -- but blind distrust can be just as bad, and your excusing the inexcusable will lead to no good.
In the long run, it can only do damage to your moral compass.
How about telling your inpressionable parishioners that AIDS is God's punishment for SIN?? I've heard that in a white pulpit or two.
ReplyDelete"Soft bigotry of low expectations"
Now you do make me chuckle.
Bubba, obviously you've never been to many black churches, especially black churches in the south.
Alan said "Republicans are looking for ways to smear him?". I wasn't aware that Lanny Davis switched parties, maybe someone should tell Hillary, she might want to re-think hiring a republican.
ReplyDeleteRe: The Phelps, Hagee, Parsley comparison. Can anyone name on person outside of the WBC that thinks Phelps is not a nut. It's not hard to find criticism of Hagee and Parsley from any number of "conservative evangelicals".
So the arguement now is "If mcCain gets spiritual advice from a nut, then Obama should too"
BTW Has McCain actually been a member of the churches of Parsley or Hagee? Has he consistantly financially supported them? Have either of them performed sacraments for involving McCain or his immidiate family?
Marty, if you're arguing that this sort of slander from the pulpit is A) widespread among black churches and B) acceptible because it's widespread, then I think you do have low expectations for black churches, because slander shouldn't be acceptible in any church, regardless of the color of its members.
ReplyDeleteAnd the idea that God created AIDS as a punishment for sin has at least one thing going for it: an omnipotent God actually can create a deadly virus, but the government cannot.
"This attempted equivalence is disgusting. By no means is it as disgusting as Obama's attempt to compare Wright with his own grandmother: I'm able to say that because, like all rational adults, I can differentiate between things."
ReplyDeleteforgive me Bubba, since I'm clearly not rational nor an adult.
Genetically engineer AIDS? No. But you really don't want to get in a discussion about AIDS with me, Buddy. Let's take a look at the most Holy Ronald Reagan, for example. Did you know he went through his entire Presidency, during the very worst days of the epidemic, when people were burying friends week after week, month after month, and he never once mentioned the word AIDS?
So pardon me if I feel a little sympathy for the African American community, which is now bearing the brunt of this epidemic through complete lack of interest on the part of white politicians.
I love my country, but on this topic, I can't even think of the appropriate words to say how I feel about our government. And no amount of hyperbole would begin to describe it.
But then what do I know, I'm an irrational child. ;) I'm sure we all benefit from such paternalism.... pretty much the defining characteristic of this debate actually: "Here, let me, a white man talk to you, a black man about how you should talk about race in this country." Feh. Talk about disgusting.
"Alan, you would have to say that you would have no problem with a Presidential candidate who attended FRED PHELPS' church for twenty years."
Um, no... talk about childish and irrational false equivalencies. ROFL. (Notice I can call your statement childish and irrational without making ad hominem attacks against you. You might try it sometime, buddy.) Asserting that Fred Phelps and Rev. Wright are at all similar is ridiculous. LOL. I didn't realize that, except for a few phrases taken out of a few sermons, most of what Fred Phelps has to say is rational. Oh, is that what you believe? That would hardly be surprising. Nor did I realize that Fred's ancestors had been enslaved for a couple centuries by gay people. Talk about disgusting. Ignoring slavery? THAT'S disgusting!
"Has McCain actually been a member of the churches of Parsley or Hagee? "
ROFL. McCain has called Parsley a "spiritual advisor". But then, I these days I don't expect consistency from conservatives. When you're proven wrong, just move the goal posts. Don't admit you're wrong, and that such statements cannot, CANNOT be defended. Typical. Partisan.
"an omnipotent God actually can create a deadly virus, but the government cannot."
You're joking right?
"How about telling your inpressionable parishioners that AIDS is God's punishment for SIN?? I've heard that in a white pulpit or two."
Exactly.
Just when did people become SO FRAGILE? You all agree with every single word that comes out of your Pastor's mouth? How then could you possibly learn anything from him/her? Heck, even when I'm sure my Pastor is dead wrong, I still learn something from his sermons.
Hmmm... Perhaps I'm not the child here after all, waiting to be spoon fed by some guy in a robe.
BTW, folks here's an interesting statement from Rev. John Buchanan, former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) about the Wright controversy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fourthchurch.org/JMBonJeremiahWright.html
You shall know them by their fruits. I dare anyone to judge Rev. Wright's church on that basis and find it lacking.
forgive me Bubba, since I'm clearly not rational nor an adult. (per Alan)
ReplyDeleteAlan, I would wonder about that myself after the tirade you went on about me because I dared wonder about your interpretation of scripture (which you had done to someone else in the post just above mine). It appears quite vain in my eyes for someone to accuse a white haired grandmother of being obsessed with your groin, when you know nothing about me personally and to be frank with you, that was disgusting and childish. Mom2
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure who you are accusing of moving the goal posts. If you are accusing me, I'm not sure why. Until the Wright thing hit me in the face, I hadn't followed the candidates "spiritual journeys". I simply don't know what the actual relationship is between McCain and Parsley and Hagee. Frankly, I don't particularly care for any of the three of the current crop, and McCain's attachment to H&P as a huge negative in terms of my personal vote.
I have always assumed that McCain was not a particularly "religious" guy. So I'm a little suprised that if he is playing the "spiritual advisor" card that he didn't choose someone a little less fringe. It seems politically inexpediant to ID P&H as ones "spiritual advisor" as they would be apt to turn off much of the "religious right".
Sorry this went so long but, your "move the goal posts" comment confused me. It seems as though you took it as a political statement when It was a request for information.
For the record, when a pastor at a previous church, began to say things from the pulpit that were concerning (theologically) to a number of members of the congregation (exacerbated by the fcat that he was being less than upfront about things), they either left or followed the Matt 18 pattern and confronted him privately. I would expect no less of any church member in a similar situation.
Hope this clears things up.
"Marty, if you're arguing that this sort of slander from the pulpit is A) widespread among black churches and B) acceptible because it's widespread, then I think you do have low expectations for black churches, because slander shouldn't be acceptible in any church, regardless of the color of its members."
ReplyDeleteBubba, I'm not arguing, nor am I saying whether it is acceptable or not. Just making an observation. How many black church services have you attended?
Alan, I read the statement by John Buchanan. Wonderful edifying words. Thanks for sharing that.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you all are going faster'n I can keep up.
ReplyDeleteSo, in brief:
What Alan and Marty said. Thanks, guys.
I came across an interesting post regarding The Sermon.
ReplyDeletehttp://purechurch.blogspot.com/2008/03/confusing-god-and-government.html
Craig
Dan & Marty ... you're welcome.
ReplyDeleteMom2, as my Dad would say, "This fish don't rise to cheap bait." ;)
John, have you ever attended black churches? If you had, you would know this goes on every Sunday.
ReplyDeleteI've attended Black church worship services twice. Once many years ago, and once in January. I went to a Black Pentecostal church as part of a class assignment. The worship was phenomenal. I was heartily welcomed, although I could tell that I was the first white person that they had seen in their church in a long time.
The pastor did advocate for a conspiracy theory while preaching, though. It was that America was secretly ruled by a Trilateral Commission. Disappointing.
Why do you ask, Marty?
I listened to those sermons of Rev. Wright's in their entirety. Did you John? Putting them in context changes things quite a bit.
I'm willing to listen to his sermons. I wouldn't mind at all hearing the context of his brief statements about Israeli and U.S. government conspiracies, etc. I have, however, been unable to find them online. Please direct me to the video or audio.
Alan wrote:
ReplyDeleteGee, why did it take 20 years and sudden, enormous public pressure for *you* to say you disagreed with Rev. Wright? Seriously. He's been around for a long time, what have you been waiting for?
I didn't know him for 20 years and he wasn't my spiritual mentor during that time. Unlike, you know, Obama.
Again, this assertion that a politician is going to announce disagreement with something some other person has said, who is completely unrelated to the campaign, even before being asked to do so is a ridiculous and naive. When, in the history of politics, has that EVER happened? LOL "Oh, here, let me bring up a non-issue, so you all can have a feeding frenzy."
As bubba pointed out, Wright is anything but unrelated to the campaign, and certainly anything but unrelated to the life of Obama. Since he was -- until the media scrutiny -- Obama's spiritual mentor. By Obama's own proclamation.
I think that there is one essential difference between the two major viewpoints expressed in this comment thread. Some of us think that Wright's comments were wildly unreasonable and inexcusable. And some of us find them reasonable and quite excusable. And therein lies a world of difference.
Actually I don't find them reasonable, and never said I did.
ReplyDeleteSometimes one can only express one's rage by being unreasonable. Sometimes such unreasonable comments are indeed offensive, particularly to those outside a community, without the context to understand them, particularly if they are looking for something about which to be offended. The question is, after the Tuskegee experiments, can one find some truth being expressed that lies below the surface of such comments? In the present day can one understand how the pathetic response from the government to the AIDS epidemic in the African American community might create some rage? Can one even find in their heart sympathy for the hurt and anger that spills out, sometimes like a firehose?
Or do we just sit back and try to score cheap political points off such moments?
The difference here, John is that some of us here are willing to see past the hyperbole, not to excuse it, not to pretend it's reasonable, but also not to use it for cheap political points.
You say I think the comments were reasonable and excusable. You're wrong. Would you care to hear what I actually think? What I actually think is that Republican strategists, taking a page out of the Karl Rove "Playbook O' Fear-Mongering" (copyright 2000, 2004, Karl Rove) are looking for a way to turn Obama into the stereotypical "scary black man". The constant implications that Obama is a crypto-Muslim who was sworn in on a Koran didn't really get much traction, except for the real nutters. So, given that Obama isn't very scary on his own, they find some other "scary black guy" they can use, to try to paint that portrait by proxy. I'm sure they were probably looking for some comment by a gangsta-rapper, but figured this one would do for now.
Some of us are just cynical enough not to believe everything our political party overlords tell us. :) Some of us are just cynical enough to ask why the political party overlords try to make certain things an issue, while ignoring others (ie. Hagee and Parsley). Some of us are cynical enough to believe that these political games are not about what is right, what is wrong, or understanding, or conversations about race, but about winning. Frankly I'm not interested in being manipulated by Republican Party hacks who want to try to turn what is nothing more than political maneuvering into some sort of "Important Issue".
"What Alan and Marty said. Thanks, guys."
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome Dan.
John, I'll reply to your comments later when I have more time.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I asked you if you had been to any black churches was because your comments didn't seem to me as if you had much experience in that. Turns out I was right.
I am not condoning nor condemning the Rev. Wright. I haven't walked in his shoes. But I do remember when black people were treated worse than animals. It hasn't been that long ago. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. I can remember sitting in front of the TV and watching black kids my age being washed off streets with fire hoses. I can remember, as a child, getting thirsty in the A&P grocery store and running up to a water fountain...the one with the stool...and began drinking. How grown up I was, drinking from the fountain all by myself, when suddenly my mother forcefully jerked me off the stool and scolded me and told me not to drink from that fountain. It was for niggers and was dirty. I remember the cafe in the small town where my grandparents lived with a sign on the door "No colored people served here". I remember refusing to use the black restroom at a gas station when the white one was out of order. All of that is seared into my memory like some horrible plague afflicting my country. Now just imagine if I was a black child growing up with all that. I don't know how much resentment I would carry with me throughout my life. I just don't know. But I do know that I carry a lot of regrets for refusing to speak out.. I should have drank from that "colored only" fountain, dammit. I knew in my little girl heart that there was nothing wrong with that fountain. They looked exactly the same.
Anyway, context matters and you can listen to the entire 9/11 sermon here and you can get more info and watch other sermons of Rev. Wright here. I hope this helps.
"As Bubba said, this is the bigotry of low expectations; to suggest that Black people can't help it but talk crazy talk because they're not really civilized."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was under the mistaken impression you were interested in conversation. That little gem is not what I said, nor can even the most outlandish reading of my words, cooked up by someone's fevered imagination possibly believe I even implied it.
I'll repeat what I said, so that perhaps you can get it this time. All sorts of people, of all sorts of ages, races, and genders say all sorts of things things when expressing their anger and rage at injustice. Oftentimes it's not a pretty sight, and what they have to say can be offensive. Not because they're "uncivilized" but because they're angry, and they have a right to be. But just because some straight white old men decide they're offended and have decided they're the self-appointed arbiters of how we're all, in this case, supposed to talk about race, doesn't mean the injustice hasn't actually occurred and people aren't actually justified in their anger.
I'm sure that kind of rage over injustice is difficult to understand for America's frozen chosen. I don't condone it, nor do I excuse it, but I can understand the underlying causes, and I'm as I said, I'm not interested in making cheap political points out of it, like some. I'd much rather hear about real issues that actually matter.
All this blathering on about something some guy said who isn't even running for President. *yawn* Let me know when the folks running for President actually say something crazy and I'll be interested. ;)
"or their avowed spiritual mentors."
Heh. So I guess when McCain himself calls Rev. Parsley a "spiritual advisor" that's not an "avowed spiritual mentor"? ROFL. Gotcha. Wow... hard to think of a better example of a double standard in these debates! Thanks! I'll use this often as an excellent example of it. LOL Even though McCain has indeed called Parsley a "spiritual advisor" personally I don't care if Hagee and Parsley are complete strangers to McCain he should still disavow their endorsements. But they're clearly not strangers. Yup, ... just more right-wing hypocrisy: denounce spiritual mentors, unless they're Republican spiritual mentors. LOL Seriously, thanks for the laugh. :)
"But if a white Presidential candidate had a pastor and spiritual mentor who accused Israel of staging 9/11, the U.S. government of inventing AIDS, expressed support for Hamas, and called for the damnation of America, then that white Presidential candidate should be held to account, and his qualifications seriously questioned."
Meh. If the Presidential candidate agreed with that, yeah, I'd agree with you. But if they don't, I don't really agree with holding one persona accountable for another person's words. I guess I'm still too hung up on personal responsibility/accountability.
The discrimination that blacks experienced 40 years ago was bad; and the chattal slavery their ancestors experienced 140 years ago was very, very bad.
ReplyDeleteBut there's something noticeably missing in this formulation of trying to understand anger that (supposedly) can't be expressed rationally and in asking critics of Jeremiah Wright to produce their paperwork to prove they've attended black churches and are therefore permitted to speak on this subject.
What's missing is the simple truth that two wrongs don't make a right.
The Tuskegee experiment was an atrocious evil, but slandering the government by accusing it of creating AIDS to wipe out blacks is also evil.
Being told you can't drink from certain water fountains is sure to screw up a person's psyche, but so too is being told that his government is creating diseases to kill you and everyone who looks like you: so too is being told that an easily preventable STD is the result, not of personal irresponsibility, but a "complete lack of interest on the part of white politicians."
Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's a shame that a man speaking from a pulpit ostensibly as a representative of God Almighty doesn't seem to get that, and it's a shame that some Christians here don't seem to get that, either.
And, indeed, we're focusing on Wright's words and not Obama's, but personal responsiblity doesn't just mean, I'm not responsible for what this other guy says.
It also means, I AM responsible for the company I keep.
A person who apparently denies the responsibility we have in our own voluntary associations may be many things: hung up on personal responsibility, he isn't.
And, I must say, the real paternalism on display here is the condescending attitude that blacks can't be held responsible for what they say in anger and can't be expected to control their anger -- however justifiable -- to control themselves enough to speak rationally and truthfully.
To say that having the same high expectations for all people is paternalistic, is positively Orwellian.
But then, what else would be deployed to defend and excuse Jeremiah Wright's Two Minutes Hate?
I'll repeat what I said, so that perhaps you can get it this time. All sorts of people, of all sorts of ages, races, and genders say all sorts of things things when expressing their anger and rage at injustice. Oftentimes it's not a pretty sight, and what they have to say can be offensive. Not because they're "uncivilized" but because they're angry, and they have a right to be. But just because some straight white old men decide they're offended and have decided they're the self-appointed arbiters of how we're all, in this case, supposed to talk about race, doesn't mean the injustice hasn't actually occurred and people aren't actually justified in their anger.
ReplyDeleteWait -- so you're saying that Wright is correct and has a right to be angry at the Jews for 9/11 and the U.S. for inventing AIDS?
Heh. So I guess when McCain himself calls Rev. Parsley a "spiritual advisor" that's not an "avowed spiritual mentor"? ROFL. Gotcha.
Please provide evidence that McCain has called Parsley a spiritual advisor. Also, provide evidence that McCain has spent years in Parsley's church and had a close spiritual relationship with him. Also, what has Parsley said wrong? I am only peripherially aware of him.
Meh. If the Presidential candidate agreed with that, yeah, I'd agree with you. But if they don't, I don't really agree with holding one persona accountable for another person's words. I guess I'm still too hung up on personal responsibility/accountability.
So am I. Which is why I am bothered that it took Obama 20 years and media scrutiny to starting acting responsible.
It makes me question the sincerity of his recent disavowal of Wright.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteWright and even Obama himself can look back on centuries of racial oppression and be Angry Black Man. And they'd have significant reason to. But Obama can't be the post-racial candidate if he finds Wright's views acceptable in civilized public discourse.
Bubba wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat's missing is the simple truth that two wrongs don't make a right.
Exactly!
"And, I must say, the real paternalism on display here is the condescending attitude that blacks can't be held responsible for what they say in anger and can't be expected to control their anger -- however justifiable -- to control themselves enough to speak rationally and truthfully. "
ReplyDeleteAgain, not what I said at all. Not even what I implied. But if you can't even understand my clear words, then I have no confidence in your ability to understand Rev. Wright's either.
"A person who apparently denies the responsibility we have in our own voluntary associations may be many things: hung up on personal responsibility, he isn't."
Given Obama has already clearly stated that he disagrees with Rev. Wright's words, I'd say he fulfilled his responsibility.
"Wait -- so you're saying that Wright is correct and has a right to be angry at the Jews for 9/11 and the U.S. for inventing AIDS?"
ReplyDeleteROFL. Sorry John, I really was under the impression you were being serious here. LOL Is it still April 1st? :)
"Also, what has Parsley said wrong? I am only peripherially aware of him."
LOL. I am not at all surprised. Don't worry about it. Forget I even brought him and Hagee up. :)
Apparently Alan thinks that John and my comments aren't entirely fair or reasonable. Funny enough, he isn't interested in finding the truth that lies below the surface of our comments. One wonders if he can find in his heart any sympathy for those with whom he disagrees.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe John and my outrage at Wright's slander isn't sufficiently rooted in a history of oppression against our ancestors.
"Apparently Alan thinks..."
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently Bubba is mind-reading again.... (and once again doing it badly, I might add)
"One wonders if he can find in his heart any sympathy for those with whom he disagrees. "
Sure, I disagree with Rev. Wright.
All apologies, Alan.
ReplyDelete"Apparently Alan thinks that John and my comments aren't entirely fair or reasonable."
"And apparently Bubba is mind-reading again.... (and once again doing it badly, I might add)"
So, you think our comments are entirely fair and reasonable? Okay! ROFLOPOLIS!
"So, you think our comments are entirely fair and reasonable? Okay! "
ReplyDeleteMind reading yet again? tsk, tsk, tsk.
What's even more hilarious is that you're the one calling me childish. LOL (Still working on apologizing for that are you? Seriously a simple "I'm Sorry" would be enough, you don't have to write poetry or anything.)
Where did I call you childish, Alan?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it Bubba. We can save ourselves at least 80 more blog comments if we just ignore it and move on, which seems like rational adult thing to do. But then, what would I know? LOL
ReplyDelete"Wright and even Obama himself can look back on centuries of racial oppression and be Angry Black Man. And they'd have significant reason to. But Obama can't be the post-racial candidate if he finds Wright's views acceptable in civilized public discourse."
ReplyDeleteJohn, please listen to the entire sermons. The first link on the 9/11 sermon will also link you to the "God Damn America" sermon. Please listen to them from start to finish and then if you still feel that Wright's views are unacceptable then at least you have come to that conclusion based on the full context of his sermons and not on a few minutes of soundbites.
I would be interested in your thoughts after you listen. The two sermons are about 40 minutes in length.
I wonder: suppose a person follows Marty's advice and listens to Wright's sermons in toto. If he then decides that the comments about AIDS and 9/11 were benign in context, should he then think less of Obama because -- as Alan reminds us -- Obama clearly distanced himself from what turns out to be unoffensive speech?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that any attempt to make Wright's comments seem benign has the unfortunate side effect of making Obama look like a political coward who's willing to throw his pastor under the bus. The man performed the Senator's wedding ceremony and baptized his children; if there really isn't anything to Wright's comments, Obama should have stood his ground and said so, to hell with political consequences.
One way or another, Obama demonstrated poor judgment.
Either Wright's comments really are noxious, and Obama was wrong not to have renounced his comments until it became politically convenient.
Or Wright's comments are quite acceptible in context, and Obama was wrong to renounce his comments even when it became politically convenient.
With Bubba's 6:57 PM comment, I become more convince than ever that people will judge Obama as they wish to, whatever Wright said or meant.
ReplyDeleteMe? I find some of the Wright snippets offensive, but the ones I've seen in context of the whole sermon, less so. And, I can tell the difference between Wright & Obama, and don't hold one responsible for the words of the other, bad or good. Your milage may vary...
If it matters to you, by all means judge Obama as you will. (I have the suspicion that Obama may not've been getting the vote of some in that category regardless, so I wonder how much all the outrage bein' expressed matters.)
The very best thing about Barack Obama
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the opinion of the writing of that San Francisco-ite is supposed to be "gospel". Just more left wing biased view. Mom2
ReplyDeleteNot being able to listen to a person because of where they live or what their political views are?
ReplyDeleteThere is something very disapointing about that.
-Ben
Okay, I have now listened to both videos that Marty linked to. The first was the entirety of Wright's 40-minute 9/11 sermon, and the second was a 6 minute, 48 second clip that placed Wright's "God Damn America!" comment in context.
ReplyDeleteWright's 9/11 sermon was excellently written and expressed. Had he eliminated the chance to blame America for the 9/11 attacks and provide justification for them, it would have been simply masterful. Alas, he did not. At first, he quoted Peck as saying that America's chickens had come home to roost. And then several minutes later, he expresses that for himself.
In the second video, I cannot see how the broader context in any way exonerates Wright's damnation of America.
I would be most interested in hearing his Israel Staged 9/11 sermon, if you can find it.
John I think Wright was just repeating the Peck statement. That's how I understood it anyway. It wasn't at all offensive to me when I heard the entire sermon. I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteIf you go back to the 9/11 sermon you will find a link on that webpage to the entire "God Damn America" sermon which is titled "Confusing God and Government". It touched on Israel, but in regard to Palestine, not 9/11. I'm not sure if I know which sermon you are talking about, but I will try and find it. "Confusing God and Government" was masterfully done as well and made more of a spiritual impact on me than the 9/11 sermon. It is well worth the listen. And for what it's worth he does ask in the end to forgive him for the "God Damn America" statement.
I was blown away by his sermons. No wonder Obama considers him a spirital mentor. As far as I'm concerned it's a real shame his name has been dragged through the mud and that Obama felt he had to distance himself.
And thanks for taking the time to listen to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you can also go to my blog "On the Homefront" and listen to both sermons. I have posted them for my readers.
ReplyDeleteWasn't this thread about MLK? The more I hear of his entire POV, that is, the stuff beyond racial harmony, the more I think we should take back that holiday. He was killed for trying to correct the distribution of wealth? How? By taking it from those who've earned it? Here's a clue: create your own wealth. Adopt the ethics and strategies of those who have and you're likely to improve your financial situation.
ReplyDeleteGood questions, Marshall, and thanks for your honesty. Most folk today seem intent on whitewashing King and making him an Uncle Tom who's all 'bout gettin' along with the White Bosses and forget about the ways that he challenged us.
ReplyDeleteAnd, we do well to remember that, just as Jesus was killed shortly after he confronted boldly the economic systems/traditions that were oppressive (ie, after the clearing out of the temple, the leaders said, "He must die."), so, too, King was killed shortly after seriously challenging our economic and military directions.
Rather than either agreeing or disagreeing with King on his points, the powers that be have seemed to simply try to coopt King and tame him, making him acceptable and a marketable asset to the Powers that Be rather than the challenge he was to the System.
As to this:
ReplyDeleteAdopt the ethics and strategies of those who have and you're likely to improve your financial situation.
Adopting the ethics and strategies of those who've accumulated a lot is indeed a good way to accumulate a lot.
But we're not talking about accumulating a lot here. We're talking about living Right and Well.
Living right and well while accumulating a lot happens every day for thousands, if not millions, of Americans. You seem to want to separate wealth creation with living right. I don't personally know too many truly wealthy people (and I'm not referring to comparing us with the truly impoverished, so please don't go there), so most who I would say, by my understanding of Scripture, aren't living right are of the middle class or lower. Wealth has nothing to do with living right.
ReplyDelete...so most who I would say, by my understanding of Scripture, aren't living right are of the middle class or lower.
ReplyDeletewow. So are you saying that accumulating a lot has nothing to do with living right, but not having as much has to do with living wrongly?
That is, are you really trying to suggest that most poor and middle class folk AREN'T living right??
Not even close, Dan. I only said that most people I know are middle class or lower, so I can't speak to the integrity of anyone of great wealth. The bottom line is that living right has nothing to do with one's financial status. The greedy rich would be greedy as paupers and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteWell there's the rub, isn't it? I think Jesus and the prophets and the apostles and all the other biblical writers so frequently warn us especially of "the love of money," and to beware greed, and say, "Woe to you who are rich," and "Is it not the rich who exploit you?" and on and on because there is a special trap in wealth.
ReplyDeleteI think it entirely possible for a wealthy person to be a Christian (I consider myself wealthy, after all). BUT, I don't think Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" for no reason at all.
I think there are certain temptations in certain conditions. I agree with the notion that "Power corrupts," and think that a similar situation is true with wealth. If the Bible is to be believed.
The phrase is "absolute power corrupts absolutely". You have power over your kids. Have you been corrupted by it? I don't deny that some wealthy might be greedy. I know that the greedy people I've known in my life aren't wealthy. And has been explained in the past, the rich to whom Jesus referred were greedy people and likely were all their lives. Most of the rich were the ones who caused the gap between themselves and the poor at that time. Nowadays, those responsible for the gap are the poor themselves. We do not live in the same type of system or society as did the people of Christ's time. Most today are guided by Christ's example or a desire to be seen as being as good as Christians without being one. Rush Limbaugh just offered up $300,000 for a certain charity for which he holds an annual radiothon. His goal is to donate more to kick it off than he did the year previous. Within an hour or so, two sisters challenged him to match their combined donation totally 400K. He did instantly. I expect it will be at least 450K next year if not more. To what other charities he might support with his dough I have no idea, but that he likely does I've little doubt. I cite this as one example of my point.
ReplyDeleteBut over and over we see examples of "poor" people doing only that which adds to their misery rather than seeing something done to them. And we can see them doing greedy things as well such as cheating on tax returns. Not informing the clerk that they gave back too much change. Not giving a full day's work for a full day's pay. And countless other examples of greedy "less than wealthy" people. You never acknowledge such things, but insist that those who've busted ass to aquire have done so only by screwing others. It's a shameful indictment without evidence. It's convicting them without proving them guilty. And that's the problem I have with your view of wealth and poverty.
The phrase is "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
ReplyDeleteActually, the exact phrase is, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
From a letter from Lord Acton to Bishop Mandell Creighton, in 1887.
And I think that is a good summary of the biblical position on wealth. Wealth DOES tend to corrupt. Absolute wealth tends to corrupt absolutely.
And has been explained in the past, the rich to whom Jesus referred were greedy people and likely were all their lives.
ReplyDeleteSo, when Jesus said, "Woe to you who are rich." period, he meant a certain subset of the wealth? He meant to say, "woe to you who are greedy," is that what you're suggesting? Do you think Jesus couldn't think of the word "greedy," and so just used the word "rich" instead?
Is this just your hunch or are you basing it on anything at all? Since Jesus didn't SAY what you are saying, why should we accept your hunch?
Most of the rich were the ones who caused the gap between themselves and the poor at that time.
Again, a source? Is this a hunch or based on anything at all, since this is NOT in the text?
Nowadays, those responsible for the gap are the poor themselves.
Wow. Again, a source?
These are some might spectacular hunches you have here, do you have any reason at all that we should accept your reinterpretation of Jesus' direct words rather than Jesus' direct words? Any reason we should blame the poor for their poverty other than your own prejudices?
It's all fine and good to make nutty statements like this if you wish, but you can't really expect others to buy them if you don't offer some kind of support.
Wait just a second muh man. Now again you want a source and exact perfection in interpretations? How freakin' dare you!! Your defense of homosexual unions is no more supportable than my stuff here and even less so. But I don't think it's a big revelation to say that the Jews in power were corrupt and exploitative toward their brethren. The temple money changers that Christ drove out were gouging the people and not allowing any but their own animals to be used for sacrifice. I don't deny that the rich have their own set of temptations unrealized by the less than rich, but only by degrees. Perhaps you know of specific temptations under which the rich struggle that are totally unknown to everyone else. Likely I'll have an equivalent. Care to try? It could be a good contest.
ReplyDelete1. The temptation to do what it takes to stay rich. (This general temptation covers nearly countless lesser, specific temptations - the temptation to wage war to protect yours, the temptation to not want to pay your fair share, the temptation to enact numerous unjust policies that benefit the wealthy at the cost of the poor, the marginalized, the earth or future generations. I'd suggest adding about 1000 for this generalization if you want to talk specifics.)
ReplyDelete2. The temptation to rely on your wealth and not God.
3. The temptation to turn a blind eye to flaws in the system that is keeping you rich, failing to see how it negatively impacts others.
4. The temptation to look down on the poor, "After all, if I pulled myself up by myself, why shouldn't they??"
5. The temptation to think that you pulled yourself up by yourself.
6. The temptation to forget that this is GOD's world and GOD's stuff. Not ours.
7. The temptation to try to explain away why verses like, "Woe to the rich," and "Is it not the rich who exploit you," etc, DON'T apply to you.
8. The temptation to seek answers in patriarchal, horizontal, Us/Them sorts of solutions ("What can I do to help the poor wretches?") rather than communal, vertical, side-by-side solutions ("How can we improve our lot, brothers and sisters? How can I help?")
9. The temptation to not even understand the difference between the two above.
10. The temptation to want to see your wealth grow.
For starters.
The thing is, it comes down to this:
Did Jesus (and the Bible) say what he said? I say Yes.
Did he mean what he said? I say Yes.
Given that, and given that I'm amongst the wealthy that is so frequently and consistently warned of, what should I do?
In other words, I am beginning with the clear meaning and going from there, rather than trying to explain away the clear meaning and proceeding from a different set of assumptions.
Wait just a second muh man. Now again you want a source and exact perfection in interpretations? How freakin' dare you!! Your defense of homosexual unions is no more supportable than my stuff here and even less so.
ReplyDeleteHow dare I?? How dare you? You're the one that finds about five verses in THE WHOLE BIBLE (none of which speak to gay marriage specifically) and make the jump to conclude gay marriage is wrong because we must interpret those five vague passages literally, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE to say that, "Well, though, when Jesus said, 'blessed are the poor,' he didn't mean that LITERALLY. When Jesus said, 'woe to you who are wealthy,' he didn't mean that literally..."
What gall! What nerve! Insisting on taking five vague passages in a manner that you consider literal to say that gay marriage is absolutely and obviously wrong AND THEN ignoring the CLEAR meaning of hundreds if not thousands of passages INCLUDING JESUS' DIRECT QUOTES!
Don't you dare ask "How Dare You?" First, remove the plank from your own eye and then MAYBE you could see to help your brother remove a speck from his own eye.
There's verification of one of my temptations and another one:
11. The temptation to ignore a HUGE portion of the Bible and call it NOT to be taken literally, despite a paucity of evidence supporting such a decision and INSTEAD focus on minor little debatable sorts of verses and ideas rather than major themes.
But I don't think it's a big revelation to say that the Jews in power were corrupt and exploitative toward their brethren.
Yes, many Jews in power and with wealth in Jesus' day were corrupted by that. Hence Jesus' warnings.
But why does it apply to them and not us?
Your defense of homosexual unions is no more supportable than my stuff here and even less so.
ReplyDeleteAnd the difference between us and why it's hypocritical for you but not for me is that I don't claim to take the Bible literally. You do!
Or at least you do until a verse (or whole passages - and consistently throughout the Bible) come along that don't fit your worldview and then you spiritualize those verses or otherwise render them Null and void.
Marshall said:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you know of specific temptations under which the rich struggle that are totally unknown to everyone else. Likely I'll have an equivalent. Care to try? It could be a good contest.
Apparently no contest at all. Where'd ya go, Marshall?