Comments on: Cause and Effect. http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:01:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: me http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1701 me Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:38:00 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1701 Rev. Wright is a scholar of a certain type of theology: black liberation theology. I'm not one but I've made some small study of it. It equates Rome, in the New Testament documents with the white power structure. Its purpose is to deconstruct that power structure. I'm not saying that it isn't possible for a black liberation theologian to separate righteous anger about that structure, culture, system and the inequities that it breeds from hatred of whites as the symbol of that structure, culture and system but what I'm saying is, from what I've heard from Wright, Wright did not always make that distinction. And when that distinction is not explicitly drawn, even when the preacher doesn't hate whites, his listeners can. After all, if whites are responsible for just about everything wrong in the black community and for black suffering and oppression, how can some listeners NOT develop hate of white people? That is to say, Wright's theology is a breeding ground for just this sort of hate of which we have actual examples and, furthermore, we have actual evidence that Wright did not always make a distinction between hating the white-run system and loving the white man. I don't need twenty years of sermons to prove it; I have Obama's speech in which he admits to hearing things that were divisive, counter-effectual, warped and ignorant. It is no defense of the relationship to say that Wright didn't go off on these rants every Sunday for twenty years (or that I cannot prove that he did from 20 years of sermons) because (a) I know that behind those rants is the entire theological structure to which Wright has devoted his scholarship and preaching ministry there in Chicago and (b) he went off on them often enough that Obama admits having heard them and continued that relationship over a twenty year or more period of time and only ended that relationship when Wright's words and ideas became publicly known. Having explained my basis for such, I shall attempt to stop wholesale labeling and admit that Rev. Wright did much that is good. But I don't have to go any further than Obama's speech to prove that, in Obama's own eyes, Wright also did harm; all I have to do is take Obama at his word. Craig R. Harmon Rev. Wright is a scholar of a certain type of theology: black liberation theology. I’m not one but I’ve made some small study of it. It equates Rome, in the New Testament documents with the white power structure. Its purpose is to deconstruct that power structure. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible for a black liberation theologian to separate righteous anger about that structure, culture, system and the inequities that it breeds from hatred of whites as the symbol of that structure, culture and system but what I’m saying is, from what I’ve heard from Wright, Wright did not always make that distinction. And when that distinction is not explicitly drawn, even when the preacher doesn’t hate whites, his listeners can. After all, if whites are responsible for just about everything wrong in the black community and for black suffering and oppression, how can some listeners NOT develop hate of white people?

That is to say, Wright’s theology is a breeding ground for just this sort of hate of which we have actual examples and, furthermore, we have actual evidence that Wright did not always make a distinction between hating the white-run system and loving the white man. I don’t need twenty years of sermons to prove it; I have Obama’s speech in which he admits to hearing things that were divisive, counter-effectual, warped and ignorant. It is no defense of the relationship to say that Wright didn’t go off on these rants every Sunday for twenty years (or that I cannot prove that he did from 20 years of sermons) because (a) I know that behind those rants is the entire theological structure to which Wright has devoted his scholarship and preaching ministry there in Chicago and (b) he went off on them often enough that Obama admits having heard them and continued that relationship over a twenty year or more period of time and only ended that relationship when Wright’s words and ideas became publicly known.

Having explained my basis for such, I shall attempt to stop wholesale labeling and admit that Rev. Wright did much that is good. But I don’t have to go any further than Obama’s speech to prove that, in Obama’s own eyes, Wright also did harm; all I have to do is take Obama at his word.

Craig R. Harmon

]]> By: Jet Netwal http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1700 Jet Netwal Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:36 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1700 Again, I say to you, if you are reading twenty years woth of full sermons and can show me all this "hate", bring it on. If not, I'm calling Bullshit, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop wholesale labeling to fit your argument. Really. If I did this Craig, you would call me out on it. Stop it. Again, I say to you, if you are reading twenty years woth of full sermons and can show me all this “hate”, bring it on. If not, I’m calling Bullshit, and I’d appreciate it if you would stop wholesale labeling to fit your argument.

Really. If I did this Craig, you would call me out on it. Stop it.

]]> By: me http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1699 me Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:02:08 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1699 The difference is, I think, no one running for president this time around has ever made any of those men their pastor for 20 years nor such close friends nor long time political and spiritual adviser. In that respect, Obama's relationship with Wright is unique and nothing remotely like their relationship finds anything similar in any other candidate. Yes, McCain, having roundly criticized Evangelical pastors such as those mentioned in his 2000 run for president, has sought out their support but (a) McCain didn't need the sort of public crisis Obama has faced over his relationship to Wright in order to criticize the wacky things these guys have said and (b) there's been no long-term relationship between McCain and them, (c) long-term financial support by McCain of them, (d) 20 years of membership in their Church regularly attending and listening to preaching of their hatred. Finally. I would not say that people should not vote for Obama over his relationship to Wright, any more than I think no one should vote for McCain over seeking support of Evangelical leaders. Both McCain and Obama open themselves up for legitimate criticism and I have criticized them both. But the difference here is, as I've said, the unique relationship that Obama had with Wright. The difference is, I think, no one running for president this time around has ever made any of those men their pastor for 20 years nor such close friends nor long time political and spiritual adviser. In that respect, Obama’s relationship with Wright is unique and nothing remotely like their relationship finds anything similar in any other candidate. Yes, McCain, having roundly criticized Evangelical pastors such as those mentioned in his 2000 run for president, has sought out their support but (a) McCain didn’t need the sort of public crisis Obama has faced over his relationship to Wright in order to criticize the wacky things these guys have said and (b) there’s been no long-term relationship between McCain and them, (c) long-term financial support by McCain of them, (d) 20 years of membership in their Church regularly attending and listening to preaching of their hatred.

Finally. I would not say that people should not vote for Obama over his relationship to Wright, any more than I think no one should vote for McCain over seeking support of Evangelical leaders. Both McCain and Obama open themselves up for legitimate criticism and I have criticized them both. But the difference here is, as I’ve said, the unique relationship that Obama had with Wright.

]]> By: me http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1698 me Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:43:27 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1698 Well, I have no desire to defend Fox News Channel and I won't. I haven't watched it in years so I would have no basis for doing so even if I had the desire. But if you're saying that everything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and others have not been reported on or demonized, I guess I'd just have to disagree. I've read many a news report quoting them, responses of critics lined up in the report and liberal commentators and bloggers demonizing them so I just don't see the basis for your complaint. Well, I have no desire to defend Fox News Channel and I won’t. I haven’t watched it in years so I would have no basis for doing so even if I had the desire.

But if you’re saying that everything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and others have not been reported on or demonized, I guess I’d just have to disagree. I’ve read many a news report quoting them, responses of critics lined up in the report and liberal commentators and bloggers demonizing them so I just don’t see the basis for your complaint.

]]> By: Jet Netwal http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1697 Jet Netwal Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:35:54 +0000 http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/23/cause-and-effect/#comment-1697 No Craig, what I'm saying is that in the Wright speech, found here: http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/22/more-fox-noise-more-fox-lies/ Wright clearly attibutes his source but that the media deliberately omits that in order to reframe the story, To make it even more absurd, former Ambassador Peck said the chickens quote while giving an interview on FOX! Wright attributed the quote to him, but when FOX ran it, they edited the attribution portion off and ran it like it was Wright's words when they knew damn well it was something Peck said ON THEIR PROGRAMMING!!!! This is dishonest, and manipulative. It damn sure is not unbiased journalism. Based on your argument, everything that Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and other's say should be equally demonized. We don't see that tho, but the bad scary black preacher, now that guy needs a lesson. It's a double standard that you need to see, Craig. After listening to the whole sermon, which I encourage you to do, I don't find anyhing that out there about it. I can't say the same about Robertson et al. No Craig, what I’m saying is that in the Wright speech, found here:

http://election2008.teambio.org/2008/03/22/more-fox-noise-more-fox-lies/

Wright clearly attibutes his source but that the media deliberately omits that in order to reframe the story, To make it even more absurd, former Ambassador Peck said the chickens quote while giving an interview on FOX! Wright attributed the quote to him, but when FOX ran it, they edited the attribution portion off and ran it like it was Wright’s words when they knew damn well it was something Peck said ON THEIR PROGRAMMING!!!! This is dishonest, and manipulative. It damn sure is not unbiased journalism.

Based on your argument, everything that Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and other’s say should be equally demonized. We don’t see that tho, but the bad scary black preacher, now that guy needs a lesson.

It’s a double standard that you need to see, Craig. After listening to the whole sermon, which I encourage you to do, I don’t find anyhing that out there about it. I can’t say the same about Robertson et al.

]]>