I never understood back in 2004 (or any other time, for that matter) why people told me that John Kerry was such a brilliant man, when it was always clear to me that he was a pompous, arrogant windbag, and a certifiable moron.
I think that this bears out my thesis:
Kerry isn’t just stereotyping blacks. He is stereotyping Muslims too. And he is drawing an equivalence between American blacks, a racial minority in one country, and Middle Eastern Muslims, a religious majority in a whole region. To John Kerry, it seems, all “disenfranchised” people look alike.
Never mind that, as Greenwald points out, “Arab Muslims [are] none too happy with their black countrymen in northern Africa.” Never mind that in some African countries, notably Sudan and Mauritania, Arab Muslims still enslave blacks.
To Kerry, it seems, all “oppressed peoples” look alike. The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.
I think that “third-rate” is an overrating.
And on a related subject, can anyone explain to me how blacks have somehow acquired this bizarre mythology that Christians enslaved them, and that Muslims are their liberators?
Anyone familiar with the history of slavery know that the blacks were sold into it by the Arab traders, and that it was only abolished due to moral pressure from (wait for it) Christians.
Which brings me to the next subject, which is the general disconnect from reality of the so-called “black liberation theology” of which, apparently, Obama’s church is one of the biggest proponents.
So. OK. The Senator says that he doesn’t agree with everything preached in his church. Let’s get down to brass talks.
What journalist has the stones to call him on it?
I’d like to see someone ask him questions like this:
Senator, your church believes that Jesus was black. Do you agree? If not, what do you believe his ethnicity was?
Your church believes that the “white church in America” (whatever that means) supported slavery and segregation, and that it is the Anti-Christ. Do you agree with that assessment?
Your church supports a “liberation theology,” which is generally understood to be a form of Marxism justified by the Bible. Do you share the support of your church for that ideology?
If you don’t agree with your church on these issues, which seem both extreme and fundamental, how can you remain a member of it, when there are so many alternatives? Certainly most Americans would not.
Do you believe that nurturing these sorts of beliefs are helpful to African Americans? If not, why do you continue to implicitly support them by continuing to attend and donate funds to your church?
Christianity is the religion of the Americans who purchased slaves, ergo it’s a white faith and any faith in opposition to it is liberationist and worthy of black praise and devotion.
Or something like that.
Regarding the Muslim slave traders versus Christian slave owners the answer is fairly clear. Combine a bit of willful historical ignorance with the fact that the trader owned the slaves for a short amount of time compared to the salve owners, and the children of American slaves never had to deal with the Muslim captures at all. Lastly the Christian West rarely defends itself.
Rand, why do you (apparently) believe what you read in “McClatchy”?
I think (but can’t prove) that the “newspaper” you linked to is just making stuff up when it comes to the specific church that Obama joined. The article’s claims don’t make sense, given Trinity’s position within the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white protestant denomination. If you visit the congregation’s webpage, you can see some ethnocentric language that might seem unusual until one considers that many congregations have ethinc root (German, Korean, etc), but nothing racist. Click on the video which features Jane Fisler Hoffman, a (white) minister from the United Church of Christ who attends Trinity to get a first hand account of what the church is like. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
The question of Jesus being black makes me wonder where Ethiopean Jews came from.
But I don’t understand why you would be concerned if someone believes that Jesus was black. After all, the world is full of people who believe that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead (without cryonics), and all sorts of other impossible things. It is at least physically possible that Jesus was black, which makes it a far more plausible belief. And if someone does believe that Jesus could walk on water, etc, well, then I suppose they believe that on any given day, He could have whatever appearance He wanted.
One of the comments to the McClatcy piece said it best. I hope it isn’t an etiquette violation to quote the comment here:
“Submitted by CodyJarrett on Thu, 2008-03-20 20:27.
What a hack piece of journalism. The headline doesn’t support the story. You state the most controversial aspects of Cone’s beliefs and then try to extrapolate from there that since Cone knows Wright and Wright knows Obama therefore Obama believes what Cone believes.”
“That’s Monty Python logic ‘If she weighs the same as a duck she’s a witch’
Shame on you.”
Anonymous kindly gave us the link to Trinity’s web site. On that site you can see that they clearly teach what they call “black liberation theology.” I’m not familiar with the specific content of “black” liberation theology per se, but clearly Rand is correct in characterizing liberation theology as Marxist. It isn’t really Christian at all. It is Marxism expressed in a Christian vocabulary. You can choose to ignore the silliness of whether Jesus is black or not. (Of course he wasn’t – he was an ethnic Jew in first century Israel.) You can even choose to ignore the most outrageous comments of Jeremiah Wright. What is even more disturbing, I think, is how the leading Democratic contender for President of the United States belongs to a church for twenty years that preaches Marxism, and doesn’t find the dissonance great enough to change churches.
In the comments section of the McCatchy article, someone posted various biblical quotes from Jesus which sound pretty Marxist. But leave that aside — the bible can be quoted for all sorts of purposes. Look instead at the church itself, as Bill did.
The first youtube video posted on the site suggests that the “liberation” discussed is personal liberation, rather than economic or specifically Marxist liberation.
Liberty and liberation should resonate positively with all Americans, and for African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved, the concept of liberty should be particularly powerful.
I’d like to see any evidence that Trinity uses the word “liberation” in the Marxist sense rather than in an American sense.
When Rand simberg decides to hate someone, logic is of no consequence. Anonymous, you are wasting your time. It really does not matter what the evidence really is (e.g. go to Sullivan and read the entire sermon from which Wright’s offending words were extracted by Hannity etc.), He Has Decided. No evidence to the contrary can convince Simberg otherwise.
Fact is, he even hates John McCain. He hates all the candidates right now. It isn’t a wonder the moron is ill with all the hate flowing thourgh him.
I don’t hate anyone. It’s moronic to think that I do.
But it’s typical projection from a “liberal,” because many of them apparently can’t disagree with people without hating them, so they assume that everyone is like them. You want to see hate, Mike, and anger? Look in a mirror.
There is no “hate flowing through me.” I have a bug.
Anonymous, I was working from this page of the web site:
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
It begins with this statement:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone
AP Reorter: Senator Obama, do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?
Sen Obama: Ah, if there’s enough votes in it for a trip to the White House in it, I’ll believe anything you say.
I still don’t understand the line:
“The man has all the intellectual subtlety of a third-rate ethnic studies professor.”
The man actually has all the intellectual subtlety of a first-rate ethnic studies professor.
This is equivalent to being “a pompous, arrogant windbag, and a certifiable moron”.
Happy Easter eveyone.
I think Jesus was an Eskimo.