Lots of talk about churches these days. From Jeremiah Wright to Ken Hutcherson, we have our hands full.
Yet, looking past the loud mouths who seem to find themselves most often in the news for their handiwork, there has been something different going on among people of faith in recent years.
David Horsey discovered it in Colorado (the church ambiance, not the politics). Mars Hill's new branch in Belltown got some pretty favorable coverage in the process of giving off much the same vibe as the megachurch Horsey explored.
This blogger isn't the biggest fan of megachurches, at least for the purpose of my family and I experiencing a regular Sunday home. But the two houses of worship described at the links above have much in kindred spirit with my own chosen church, the Rock in Lynnwood. It's informal, visitor friendly, and heavy on faith in the real world - not ritual and abstraction. We also know we're not perfect so sure don't expect others to be.
I say all that because if I ever find myself running for major office, I have no worries about having to give a major speech desperately explaining away my friend and pastor (and fellow blogger).
If you're looking for a comfortable place to celebrate Easter, been wounded by old-school church and are looking for something new, or just curious what this new, modern church movement is actually all about, come see us (that includes curious journalists reading the blog!).
10 am, every Sunday, at Meadowdale High School in Lynnwood. Easy to get to , just minutes off the freeway. Free coffee before and after the service...and almost never a word about politics at all, especially from the pulpit.
Those interested will find out why the stereotype of faithful Evangelicals so often portrayed in the media - and so well frowned upon by Horsey above - just doesn't always fit the bill. In the Rock's case, that's why I'm proud to call it home.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 21, 2008 07:39 AM | Email ThisStudy the Bible and pay close attention to whether your church of any size really preaches the Gospel or some watered down politically correct blasphemous version that will send more people down the wide highway to Hell.
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 21, 2008 07:59 AM:)
I’ve seen far too many charlatans over the years that have wrapped themselves in a flag and started thumping on a bible to pursue a purely political agenda. Shame on them, and shame on those who couldn’t see past the empty charade.
While I went to Meadowdale (back in the days of the politically incorrect "Chiefs,") us inmates referred to it as "Mentaldale."
Posted by: Hinton on March 21, 2008 08:44 AMTo Obama's Pastor:
"?The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.
?No! No No!
?God damn America ? for killing innocent people.
?God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
?God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.?
?We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye,?
?We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.?
Two different versions of the same Country.
The Question is, how does Mr. Obama possibly expect us to believe his rhetoric of "Hope" and "Change" for all Americans, when he can't change the mind of 1 man over 20 years? Either way you look at it, he either failed to convert Mr. Wright or agreed with the message he was Spewing.
Buy hey, that's coming from a "Typical white person", so what do I know?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 21, 2008 08:45 AMClearly, in your world, it all depends on which particular charlatan's ox you're trying to gore, eh?
Posted by: Hinton on March 21, 2008 08:49 AMMy second point relates to this weeks controversy and sermons. I think we do a disservice whenever we take a random statement or quote from a Pastor's sermon without the greater context. People have gotten after the Ken Hutchinson and the Jeremiah Wright's for quotes. I argued early in the week that one of the things I need to fully evaluate the statements is the context. Well the context of Jeremiah Wright's 9/16/2001 speech is now out on the net. There are various news stories outlining the whole sermon. Here is Anderson Cooper's synopsis of the sermon, and here is Andrew Sullivan's synopsis. I will leave my own comments to a time when I can view the video and make my own opinion.
Posted by: tc on March 21, 2008 08:54 AMI think most people are economic-conservative/social-liberal like me. The prominence of people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson in the Republican party keeps many of them voting D.
I wish that more pastors would stick to their Bibles, and leave politics to politicans, as Eric's pastor apparently does.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 21, 2008 08:57 AMNot that different, one hates whitey, the other hates homosexuals. Both black, both claim they grew up in the South that they were discriminated in their youth, only one served his country honorably. They're both pastors who preach hate rather than the love everyone message as Jesus followed.
You were doing so well...until this last bit. I don't believe you know me. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 21, 2008 09:16 AMThere truly is no anything you leftists won't excuse or explain away for your side, is there?
Posted by: Hinton on March 21, 2008 09:21 AMBy their own words they shall be known.
On another topic, this is a powerful video that you may want to avail yourself of before the leftists who run youtube jerk it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90bW0&eurl=http://www.moonbattery.com/
Is it Kelly Hinton? Or is that someone else?
No matter.
I guess I don't see Obama as wrapping himself in the "rantings of an anti-American, racist bigot" any more than I saw Mitt Romney wrapping himself in the anti-American, racist bigotry that was part of the Mormon Church.
I realize you might feel this is a golden opportunity to attack an otherwise wildly popular candidate of the opposition party. But if you step back for just a moment and review those conservative values you are always touting, such and resistance to govt intrusion into our personal and religious lives, you might recognize the danger your approach.
What's next Hinton, demanding a list of all the books your opponents have ever read?
So your brother passed hundreds of vehicles and did not practice the message of Jesus by helping a single one of those individuals he passed (despite having the resources to do so). Thank you JDH for providing us with such a wonderful metaphor of the average Republican relationship with Christianity.
When it comes time to actually practice the goodness that Christianity preaches they become traditional Republicans and put the their own needs and desires before those of others who are less fortunate than themselves.
Them OBAMA backed the bus back over her just to make sure. How odd when J.Jackson said the same words about other blacks on the street and what did the libs like WIZZY say..(chirp-chirp)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2008 09:32 AMUnk, at the end of the day, there were tens of thousands, if not millions, who didn't vote for Romney because of HIS religious beliefs as well, right?
Look, Unk, I can appreciate spin as well as the next guy. But when we make a decision as to who to vote for, we have little real information to go on. In this case, the real information we have to go on is a mountain of information about the values and belief system of a particular person, in this instance, Sen. Obama.
You would have us ignore that information. You would have us drink the kool-aid the good Senator was pouring during his speech and turn a blind eye to the basis for his belief system. Here, I defer to the Shark: "Watershed, yes, but a watershed of sophistry, cynicisim, disingenuity, moral equivalence, deflection, evasion, excuse-making, subject-changing and avoidance of responsibility. As Roger L. Simon put it more eloquently and politely than I ever could, the speech was "bullshit". The very last things Obama demonstrated were courage, statesmanship, or any shred of integrity or the ability to unite and lead anybody who hasn't already endorsed him."
For the far left, who would excuse anything for their candidates, that is, of course, the way to go. Leftists have never been all that big on introspection.
You blow right through the 20 year-long association with this anti-American, racist bigot when we both know that if the shoe were on the other foot; if, for example, it were somehow shown that John McCain had attended a church affiliated with the KKK for 20 years, you people would be all over it like white on rice.
For me, the rank hypocrisy of the left in this matter combined with Obama's racism make it a decisive issue; THIS "typical white person" is unimpressed by Obama's subtle racism that he DIRECTLY expressed in his speech by throwing his own grandmother under a bus as a result of a bogus portrayal of her alleged racism; BO's handling of this issue shows terrible judgment, and that hurts him when even he admits that his campaign isn't based on experience (since he has none) but is, instead, based on a cornerstone of "judgment." Combine it with his lies on the issue, and this guy is politically DOA.
If this moron cannot handle an issue as simple as this without enmeshing himself in miles of political fly-paper, how can anyone realistically expect him to handle the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians et.al.?
But the real hoot here is gonna be the convention. Democrats have no real choice but to run a guy that's been hoisted on his own petard; who's sinking like a rock in the polls as he redefines himself as just another slick-hustler politician.
This is starting to look ugly... particularly for those on the Wright side of this issue.
Posted by: Hinton on March 21, 2008 09:50 AMBut after the big hunt tomorrow with close to 300 kids I'll need a drink and some bandages.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2008 09:52 AMPlease enlighten me. It seems clear to me that Wright hates whitey, but can you provide evidence that Hutcherson actually said that he hates homosexuals? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 21, 2008 09:54 AM
This has all the ingredients to be history in the making.
There is nothing like it. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2008 10:16 AMThanks for taking the time to pen a thoughtful reply. But as is often the case, it contains a lot of wishful thinking.
You are correct that BO will likely be the Democratic nominee. But I don't see his pastor as being much of an issue 30 days from now, much less six months from now.
He is certainly no moron, and might I remind you that name calling adds nothing to your argument. He edited the Harvard Law Review. No morons allowed in that realm. You might not like his politics, or his color, but he is very bright.
I think the Dems convention is going to be a non-event. I see the party elders coming together to prevent that by somehow convincing Hillary to see the inevitable, though I wouldn't want to be there when it happens.
As for verbal gaffs, petards as we like to say, there will be plenty of those on both sides of the aisle over the next six months. And every one will dominate a news cycle or two before they move on to the next act.
In the end, it will be about some pretty basic feelings about the economy and the wars.
Right now, I like our odds.
Clearly I've been wrong in the past.
In choosing to mishandle this issue, he again has shown that which he was counting on to get him elected, specifically, "judgment," is lacking.
Your entire response post is, of course, wishful thinking. It's BO's mishandling of these issues, not to mention the many videos of his anti-American racist bigot minister combined with his Tammy Wynette position, buttressed by his wife's indication of Wright's inculcation that will make this stick like glue.
The Swift Boats trashed Kerry and, thankfully, won the election for Bush.
The organizations like those are just now licking their collective chops at the thought of blasting away at this guy... with video after video thoughtfully provided by his church... where hatred and vitriol towards this country, our government, and white people generally rule the day.
Unk, you have a better chance of getting elected president then BO does. His failures and divisiveness touch the very core of the American people.
And this November, we will not forget... if for no other reason then we won't be allowed to forget.
That you "like your odds" is more of an indication of apparent self-delusion and hope against hope then reality.
The economy will have some play, but the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases the good senator proposes will do nothing for him OR our economy. The war no longer interests the media, because, as it turns out, McCain was right all along about the surge and the left, who pines away for the deaths of our military while they compare them to nazis in what they call a war we've already lost, will have to contend with being held accountable for their deliberate lies and distortions and efforts to undermine our troops.
But all of that will be overshadowed by the "basic feelings" people have about an empty-suited racist who refuses to denounce a church of racism, hated and vitriol.
There are other, rather uncomfortable issues for BO to contend with, such as Rezco, and that nifty little hospital payoff that got his wife a $200,000 pay increase in her job... coincidental to BO's attempt to get them a million dollar earmark, of course.
Between now and then will be fascinating soap-opera. But shutting your eyes and chanting, "there's no place like home, no place like home..." ain't gonna make it happen for you.
Posted by: Hinton on March 21, 2008 10:47 AMCato:
I did see part of the South Park episode last night. I don't normally watch. It was disgusting, yet I will admit funny. I agree that yes, Fox News probably would resort to wanting to broadcast Britney news instead of boring debate on issues. I do see where Fox News anchors themselves where getting in pissing contests with each other on whether they have gone overboard with wanting to hammer Obama. One even walked off the set. Maybe they will wake up and start focusing on real news, like the economy, or the fact that we are at the five year anniversary of Iraq.
It's amazing how quickly people forget things on this board. Especially when it deals with issues within the Republican Party.
Seems like only yesterday many of the regular posters here were attacking McCain for being too old, too liberal, to angry, etc etc. They've forgotten all these issues they themselves brought up about their candidate of choice. Now he's their man to go forward they're left with no choice but desperately attack the other parties candidate instead of defending their own lousy choice.
As we can see by McCain's flip-flop from the 2000 election, the GOP is more than happy to embrace the "Agents of Intolerance" in order to benefit their own political ambitions.
You just keep repeating that line and see how far that takes you!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2008 11:33 AMBlah blah blah, why won't McCain sever his ties with the "Agents of Intolerance" in the past he has denounced Jerry Fawell, Pat 'I hate Jews' Robertson, yet is happy to be embraced this Presidential cycle by fellow "Agents of Intolerance" like Hagee and Parsley?
The Swift Boats trashed Kerry and, thankfully, won the election for Bush.
Just think of all the fun the 527's will have with such famous McCain quotes as "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." and his insult to American workers "Americans couldn't pick lettuce for $50 an hour in Yuma". Not to mention McCain was one of the only Republicans to be against Bush's tax cuts before he was for them.
Once the Dem's get their person nominated it's going to be a bloodbath. Especially if McCain is going through with his public financing route (which limits the influence of 527's and his ability to accept RNC $$ due to the McCain-Feingold act, also screws the majority of taxpayer/voters who don't want to pay for a PUSA campaign).
Now as to Hillary, Obama and McCain, I will chose McCain hands down. But I will long for my first choice and thank God we have the right to discuss which one would be the best choice.
Posted by: Ken Howard on March 21, 2008 11:36 AMHehe, Obama has only associated with one racist bigot. At least he's consistent and acknowledges his mistake. McCain denounces bigots one year and embraces the same ones and more the next. How does that look in the grand scheme of things? I would say that sort of behavior would look pretty hypocritical in the eyes of most voters.
Granted that 95% of the posters on this board will agree with your choice for McCain. I also appreciate the 1st Amendment right to speak my mind and I don't think electing a (D) or an (R) will have an affect on that particular amendment.
America has been free to speak it mind for 200+ years and I certainly believe they will continue to exercise that right long after you and I have passed on.
I seem to recall that it's the GOP who is restricting Rep. Pam Roach's freedom to associate.
Um, when you say "she's a typical (insert race here)"......that is a racist stereotype as defined by the hyper-sensitive liberal class like yourself.
Now, whether I believe that or not about Barack Obama is irrelevant as your party has decided the rules of the game
....to quote Jerry Wright, "[the] chickens...are coming home to roost"
Posted by: Rick D. on March 21, 2008 01:33 PMThat should be Rev. Wright quoting Ambassador Edward Peck, now that we have the full context of the sermon instead of the selective Fox clips.
Posted by: tc on March 21, 2008 02:55 PMBlah, blah, blah... Obama is God's gift... none of this makes any difference.... blah blah blah...
Blah blah blah, why won't McCain sever his ties with the "Agents of Intolerance" in the past he has denounced Jerry Fawell, Pat 'I hate Jews' Robertson, yet is happy to be embraced this Presidential cycle by fellow "Agents of Intolerance" like Hagee and Parsley?
HHHHmmmm..... that's a toughie. If you can't think beyond the 3rd grade level.
Got video of any of these people engaging in the anti-American racist bigotry of Wright? Can you show where McCain attended their churches for 20 years and listened to vile filth spewed by an anti-American racist bigot while he sat there like a bump on a log? No?
Can you remotely get the smallest clue that what McCain did or didn't do has NOTHING to do with Obama's moronic lack of judgment and embrace of anti-American, racist bigoted views?
This isn't the elementary school playground, Cato. As desperate as you fringe leftists are to do ANYTHING to deflect from the facts coming out about that whack job that you've so stupidly lined up behind and change the message, this isn't the way to do it.
It was as moronic as BO's release of that picture of Clinton and Wright. All that did was continue the comparison between Obama's TWENTY FRICKEN YEAR quite voluntary involvement with an anti-American racist bigot, at LEAST INFERRING, if not CONFIRMING, BO's AGREEMENT with those views. See, BO tells us that HE DIDN'T KNOW (Or DID know... it all depends on when and who he's talking to, apparently) then he sends out this picture of Clinton and Obama, as if, somehow, Clinton DID know, and met with that anti-American racist bigot ANYWAY.
Oh, yeah... it's definitely going to be a bloodbath all right.... just not quite the way YOU "think" (using the term loosely) it's going to be.
Even now, this moronic, empty suited bigot has to parse his words... even now, he HAS to keep this going with idiocy and avoidance of responsibility of his actions.
Last week, it was, "I didn't know."
Tuesday, it was, "I DID know." (Which of course makes him a liar in addition to his many other talents.) and TODAY, he only knew about SOME of the things Wrights said...
On the DVD...
His own church...
Was selling...
In the CHURCH GIFT SHOP.
Look, Cato, I get that you're a fringe-left kool aid drinker, who, like most fringe leftists, will believe absolutely anything he's told when it supports his candidate or position. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a Daily Kos, a moveon.org or a Huffington.
But your positions and conclusions fly in the face of reality and common sense when it comes to this anti-American racist bigot candidate that YOU now support.
Posted by: hinton on March 21, 2008 03:04 PMActually, I only use the term reverend for men to be respected or revered.....ergo, Jerry Wright he remains.
You don't have enough lipstick to put on this pig, tc. Why bother trying to apply it?
Cute, but no. =)
Since you are so interested in equality then we should apply the same standards to all candidates right? If someone makes vile statements about Jews/Catholics/Mexicans/Africans/Caucasians/ets they should be demonized by their respective campaigns right? Sort of like people who say that the atrocities of 9/11 we're somehow America's fault, we should admonish them too.
If you truly believe in equality like you claim than guilt by association should apply to all candidates regardless of party affiliation. =)
BTW, you're never going to vote for Obama anyway so why do you give a damn if he went to a racist church or not? Heck, McCain called American workers lazy, I don't see the your mock outrage there. Wonder why?
Also, no wonder a lot of people think they would rather be anything, but Christian. This thread was put up on GOOD FRIDAY, EASTER WEEKEND. So, I guess the milk of Christian charity and kindness is overflowing. NOT.
I vote this is all about a hostile takeover, ala Yahoo. Its about who is the biggest dog in the yard.
HAPPY EASTER to all!
Posted by: WVH on March 21, 2008 05:17 PMJust goes to show ya', two thousand years later...
If Jesus came back today, we'd call him a liberal, scourge him, hang him on a cross and beat our chests in a nationalistic rage. Never realizing that 40 years later, our temples would be reduced to rubble.
Happy Easter
Go to the following link. Click on the You Tube Video that has alot larger context of Reverend's Wright sermon just after 9/11. He clearly starts out just prior to the small excerpt that has been blatantly blasted this whole week by stating that he had a Faith Footnote. He had been discussion one of the Psalms and wanted to interject a Faith Footnote. He stated that while watching Fox News, he saw Ambassador Peck in a heated discussion with the news casters. He then went on to share what Ambassador Peck, a white man, stated on the program. Ambassador Peck started out by quoting the Malcom X line about chickens coming home to roost. Ambassador Peck then went into a litiny of acts the US has committed over the ages. This is the excerpt that has been blasted over this past week, but it isn't Jeremiah Wright's words, but Ambassador Peck's words on Fox News. Ambassador Peck's words ended with coming back to the chickens quote again (this is the excerpt that was shown this past week). After Reverend Wright finished is Faith Fact, he went back to the Psalms and talking about what was God telling him about what had happened this week. What was God telling him through the Psalms. The first point is that it is a time to look at his own faith.
There are fully clips also available, but the clip within the article linked below totally blows the water out of the Fox News coverage this week. It is irresponsible news casting.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html
Posted by: tc on March 21, 2008 06:24 PMClip of New Pastor at Trinity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GejUlWnp3Hk&NR=1
The story and videos were broke by CBS... Not Fox.
And I just bet there is more like that out there. Even though I bet Obama is and the dem party is doing all they can to find & destory them.
Maybe you missed it, but when the Rev was doing his thing. Did you by chance notice the people at his chruch were loving it. So to say this only happen once or twice is a joke on you and others!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 21, 2008 06:56 PMYou're right tc, the "America's chickens are coming home to roost" portion of Wrights harangue was taken from Ambassador Peck's interview with Fox News.......meanwhile, everything else that Wright spewed was deep rooted in his hatred for this country and basking in the joyous act of terrorists while the rest of the congregation nodded in agreement while the smoldering ruins of NYC, D.C. and in the fields of Pennsylvania lay fresh in our memories.
It takes a special kind of inner hatred to be basking in the applause of your lemmings in the congregation while the Nation grieves a mere 5 days after 3,000 U.S. citizens lost their lives on 9/11/01, but Jerry Wright had no problems pissing on their graves in a sanctimonious act of self aggrandisement and hubris that Sunday.
Hopefully, he can reconcile with his maker one day on that act.
Now, If you'll just address my post @ 52 instead of distracting attention to Jerry wright, is it not Racial stereotyping to say " She's a typical white person"? I expect an answer this time tc.
Fox news derangement syndrome has you far off topic.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 21, 2008 08:30 PMGood luck on that scavenger hunt tc. :-)
Posted by: Rick D. on March 21, 2008 08:44 PMYo yo Eric hands full with Hutch? Hutch is punked at his daughter's high school on MLK 'cause he is right on pursuing the way the truth and the life. So some rabid selfish teacher attacks him after he is Invited!! Come on! That same teacher would hug Wright to death!! Because Wright legitimizes every reason for why everyone else victimizes you so you can stay stuck in your ruts and rages.
Wright is wrong hiding behind faith to preach for a geonicide in America.
No wonder Obama can only say hope and change becuase what is echoing in his head is kill and rage.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on March 21, 2008 09:35 PMLink: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obama-attempts.html
With regards to the Fox coverage. I am still looking for that. The Huffington Post report referenced an October Fox News appearance and I have seen references to an early October appearance by Ambassador Peck on a CNN panel. Both however don't appear to be just after 9/11 (e.g., the context that Pastor Wright spoke of in his sermon). He states in the video on You Tube of being stuck in New Jersey for several days (i.e., he was in New Jersey/New York on 9/11 and got grounded along with the rest of the country). Does anyone know when the airlines started flying again? By his sermon, it sounded like it must have been a Saturday news program. Roland Martin, of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, also reported this morning on the full context of Pastor Wright's sermon after 9/11 has been researching this story and the other tapes, which now peg the "God Damn America" sermon, which there supposedly is not more footage also out on the net, as being in the spring of 2003 (if I remember right from the broadcast) and not July of last year as newsmax reported. Anyway, Roland Martin stated that they had been checking with Ambassador White's schedule and so far haven't found any confirmation of the post 9/11 interview. I would be interested if Ambassador Peck will step forward or not with any collaborating or controdictary information. After Roland's report, it is now unclear whether the sermon was indeed the Sunday after 9/11 or a little later after 9/11. That is why I asked the airline flying question. If Wright was in New Jersey, and it sounded like he flew home (not drove), would he have even been in the pulpit the following Sunday. His sermon sounded like he was, but he will have an even bigger problem than just the words, if there isn't collaboration of Ambassador Peck's statement, since he clearly attributes the statements to Peck and not being his own.
I am not sure what to make about the big difference in date between Roland Martin's report on the other sermon and the Newsmax story stating it was a sermon last July.
Posted by: tc on March 21, 2008 09:47 PMBelow are links to Roland Martin's (CNN's Anderson Cooper 360) reports on more extensive listening to the 9/11 sermon and the 3/16/2003 sermon of Rev. Wrights:
The video of tonight's segment with Anderson, Roland and Bay Buchannan hasn't been posted yet. They seem to be a day behind on this part of CNN's website.
Posted by: tc on March 21, 2008 09:58 PMThis sermon is a lot more troublesome than the 9/16/2001 sermon. Where with the 9/1/2001, you could put the video clips into context of Wright quoting Ambassador Peck (still to be confirmed that Peck actually stated all that Wright attributed to him), the Palm Sunday Sermon is a lot more raw. The emotion in it is one of stirring up the congregation. Wright repeats unfounded conspiracies, like the Aids quote, when talking about Governments (not just the US government by the way but all governments down through history). Wright repeats the left wing endless rant about the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election, just like many here constantly won't let go of the 2004 governors race, even to the point of having the "Re-elect Rossi" sticker on the website. Both sides are continuing to live in the past on these two issues and it is time to face the future.
I don't disagree with Wright's larger point of the sermon that we as American Christians often wrap God and Country into one and worship Country over God. I don't disagree with his points that God doesn't lie, God Doesn't Change, and that God doesn't fail. I do think he went overboard in his examples of contrasting governments and their inadequacies to address human need.
The sermon being on Palm Sunday also does have some significance. For when Jesus did enter Jerusalem, the crowd cheered. They thought their earthly King and Savior had arrived and that they could get rid of their Roman occupiers. Jesus mission however was not their to set up an earthly government, but to establish an eternal kingdom through his death and resurrection. He came to be the ultimate sacrifice for all our sins and conquer death so that we all may live.
So we have a paradox. On the one hand the overall intent of the message is correct from a Christian theological standpoint. On the other hand, the "how" of Wright in the sermon should be called into question. I feel he does goes overboard with his litany and it in essences detracts from the intent of his message. It could very well leave the congregation all riled up about the sins of governments (whether true or not) and forget about the point of the sermon. From that standpoint, I would judge the sermon as a failure.
In the broader context and relation to politics. We know have three of Wrights sermons where we can see the full context. There is the Audicity of Hope sermon about the story of Hannah in the Bible that many feel is a very good sermon. There is the 9/16/01 (Post 9/11) Sermon, that I would say is in-between, depending on whether the news agencies can validate whether Wright was accurately reflecting what Ambassador Peck stated, or if he took liberties with the statements. I don't believe he made it up out of thin are. Finally, their is the Palm Sunday sermon, where Wright does go overboard and loses his main intent of the sermon due to his ranting about all government's sins. This doesn't address yet the last Christmas sermon where he states that Hillary didn't grow up being called a N_____.
Overall, in listening to Barack throughout the last year, I do not believe he shares Wrights outlook on governments. If you listen or read Audicity of Hope and his numerous speechs, town meetings, and interviews, you do not see this excess in hyperbole. What you see, I believe is more his upbringing from a White Mom, who wanted her son to have a world view, treat everyone with respect, and not wait for someone else to do the work you need to do yourself.
As for Wright, this is a sampling of his sermons, whether it is indicative or not could be questioned. Of course the media is going to focus on the inflammatory and spectacular portions, it sells market share. If most of Wright's sermons are on the end of the Palm Sunday sermons, then I would tend to agree with those that ask the question why did Barack stay so long in the church. On the other hand, if most of his sermons were along the lines of Audicity of Hope, with only an occasional Palm Sunday sermon thrown in, I could see how the overall good the church, itself, is doing in the community could make one decide to stay. I also agree with the comment I saw yesterday in one of the news posts, that if Barack's main concern was about being a politician and like Hillary incorrectly attributed to him, running for President all his life, then he would have been a member of some upscale, upper-middle class, suburbian church. This is where I see Barack's honesty and openess to his faith, and why I see his staying at Trinity not has some political point, but because he truly felt the were/are meeting the needs of the community they are located in. They are performing the Gospel instead of giving it lip service. This is reflected in the new Pastor's tone and video I linked earlier.
Posted by: tc on March 22, 2008 07:38 AM1. Thanks for being so fair-minded
2. Before people start linking me with Rev. Wright, I neither belong to his denomination nor support his comments.
3. This is a political web site and the fact is that partisans are just that partisans. When Dr. Paul had "issues" with his associates many folks here defended him and said that because there were these links, really they had nothing to do with how the good Dr. thought or felt. One of the posters, after finding a Youtube which was taken out of context from an exerpt of an interview conducted for another venue posted on Youtube, several months after the actual interview was conducted, of a single solitary Black person appearing to defend Dr. Paul, declared the twenty year racist history was in error. Further, they said, that Dr. Paul didn't have a racist bone in body. The point is one of their own was accused of consorting with bigots, like Duke. Senator Obama is not one of their own. Similarly, Senator Mc Cain accepted the endorsement of Rev. Hagee and according to those here, the difference is that Rev. Hagee is not Senator Mc Cain's spiritual leader and associate of twenty years. I guess we can all be glad for that. So the difference is the length of the association, does that also apply to Dr. Paul?
4. This country has a real problem with alignment in the parties based upon race. Many conservatives of color would not vote for a republican even if they are in agreement with their platform and principles because they are well, republican. They will choose a democrat candidate even though there are grave doubts about the policies of the past few years.
This is going to be a closer election than most here want to concede. What is happening among senior dems like the endorsement of Governor of New Mexico is that leaders want to keep a significant voting bloc tied to the democratic party and yes they want to win.
5. Despite the characterization of "empty suit," Senator Obama is no idiot. He wants to win as well. Dems will do what it takes to produce a winning ticket.
So, the question is whether the Rev. Wright strategy of 2008 has evolved from the Southern Strategy of the 60s? Different century, different generation, and different set of circumstances. This time it might backfire.
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 10:13 AMJerry Wright Supporters are no better than the white supremacist supporters, they're just better at disguising their racism.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 01:07 PMWhat exactly is your point? Now, are you attempting to argue that those who hold bigoted views no matter their race, color, or creed are bigots? I don't know the rules for the United Church of Christ which is Rev. Wright's denomination, but they haven't defrocked him, he simply retired. So, as a minister in good standing with that denomination, he has ministered to several thousand practicing Christians in the denomination of the Church of Christ. Are you equating every single member of his Church with every single member of David Duke's organization? In your arguement, every single member of Rev. Wright's Church IS NOT a Christian and IS in fact, a bigot. Is that your argument?
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 01:33 PMRefer back to post # 73 and read the 2nd sentence. You didn't appear to have gotten the point the first time.
...and there is no "e" in argument Dr. of Education.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 01:57 PMTo use that incendiary language the Sunday following the worst terrorist act committed on U.S. soil troubles me as a former Marine and a Citizen of this country as well. As I stated above, he was glowing in the adulation of his flock and was more interested in being "the cock of the walk" rather than preaching the teachings of Christ. Wright and Duke are the same man with a different klan and both should be ostracized by normal thinking human beings.
Now that David Duke has been properly exorcised from our national conscience, it is time for people to do the same with Pastor Wright for his hateful comments.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 02:39 PMSay hello to the Pacific Beach crowd and the site gurus who visit. I read your sentence. Your argument is that every member of Rev. Wright's Church, several thousand of them are racist, correct? Further, your argument must be the leadership of the United Church of Christ has refused to defrock Rev. Wright, because obviously he is leading several thousand people astray? People are bringing their children up in a manner that brings dishonor on the United Church of Christ, right?
As I understand, it to be a member of the United Church of Christ one has to adhere to their principles and be baptized. The principles of the United Church of Christ state basic Christian doctrine and are not racist. I understand that to be a member of the Klu KLux Klan one has to adhere to their principles as well. Now, comparing the two sets of principles, are you saying that every member of Rev. Wright's Church from infants on is equivalent to every Klu Klux Klan member? Is that your argument? If so, some one needs to file a complaint with the United Church of Christ to get Rev. Wright defrocked. Don't you agree?
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 05:43 PMHaving your congregation adhere to a "black value" system rather than a "christian value" system is inherently racist. Perhaps people should listen more to Dr. King's message rather than making excuses for pathetic examples like Mr. Wright who's existence relies on hatred and divisiveness.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 06:18 PMHow come Mr. Wright hasn't come out and defended his remarks?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 06:22 PM"add to this going with an excerpt of a sermon w/o checking the whole context. "
And in what context is it OK to say white people invented aids to kill black people? Please tell us all the context. There aren't any hooks in your ass. Tell us all the context.
Posted by: TypicalWhitePerson on March 22, 2008 06:23 PM"3. This is a political web site and the fact is that partisans are just that partisans. When Dr. Paul had "issues" with his associates many folks here defended him and said that because there were these links, really they had nothing to do with how the good Dr. thought or felt. One of the posters, after finding a Youtube which was taken out of context from an exerpt of an interview conducted for another venue posted on Youtube, several months after the actual interview was conducted, of a single solitary Black person appearing to defend Dr. Paul, declared the twenty year racist history was in error. Further, they said, that Dr. Paul didn't have a racist bone in body. The point is one of their own was accused of consorting with bigots, like Duke. Senator Obama is not one of their own. Similarly, Senator Mc Cain accepted the endorsement of Rev. Hagee and according to those here, the difference is that Rev. Hagee is not Senator Mc Cain's spiritual leader and associate of twenty years. I guess we can all be glad for that. So the difference is the length of the association, does that also apply to Dr. Paul? "
I have decided the only "main streamer" here is YOU. Trying to hide and disguise the philosophy of the TUCC. The so called "Black Liberation Theology" as espoused by James Cone.
Let's examine Mr Cone's words shall we?
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.
Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. "
By main streaming yourself and Dr Cone's genocidal bigotry, do you hope to infiltrate and assist in his goal to destroy the "white enemy"?
Got a large group on Beacon Hill WVH or whatever your name is?? What is your next move to "get Whitey"?
We have seen you brand of hate and we reject it.
.......tc,WVH,Cato? What say you?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2008 08:16 PMYou all seem to run into each other.
1. The United Church of Christ is the denomination which ordained Rev. Wright. Every denomination has a means of dealing with heresy. So, find a United Church of Christ member to file a complaint. The Archbishop of St. Louis just kicked a couple of folks to the curb.
2. Sorry, dude I am Catholic. So, I guess the mainstreamers hate Blacks, Jews, and Catholics, right?
3. Now, Rick D. never answered the following question:
"As I understand, it to be a member of the United Church of Christ one has to adhere to their principles and be baptized. The principles of the United Church of Christ state basic Christian doctrine and are not racist. I understand that to be a member of the Klu KLux Klan one has to adhere to their principles as well. Now, comparing the two sets of principles, are you saying that every member of Rev. Wright's Church from infants on is equivalent to every Klu Klux Klan member? Is that your argument? If so, some one needs to file a complaint with the United Church of Christ to get Rev. Wright defrocked. Don't you agree?"
The United Church of Christ is a recognized Christian denomination, like Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox.
Rev. Wright's church is chartered in fellowship with the United Church of Christ. So, are you saying that every member of that denomination is racist?
How is the weather at the beach?
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 12:13 AMSo what? Looking through the threads on SP there are several questions from several posters over time you ran away from and refused to answer. Will you give me $500.00 for every one of them I point out? Why should people answer your questions when you refuse to answer theirs???
"Rev. Wright's church is chartered in fellowship with the United Church of Christ. So, are you saying that every member of that denomination is racist?"
Nice red herring, but I am saying no such thing. Unless you are saying all members of the United Church of Christ follow Mr Cone's black liberation theology. Is that what you are saying? Because specifically in the case of Rev Wright, he has referred to this and Mr Cone's writings in interviews with the media. Are you trying to tell me that TUCC is not based on Mr Cone's black liberation theology?
Or are you trying to convince us all that Mr Cone's black liberation theology isn't about killing the "white enemy"? Yeah, tell us all about white racists "mainstreaming" again, I guess we know where they learned it, don't we?
I do realize that in order to get Mr Obama elected, people such as yourself have no other option than to mainstream Rev Wright's brand of racism and hate. It is simple mathematics. Without pulling the wool over White America and "mainstreaming" Cone's founding philosophy of the "white enemy" there is no chance for a black president. None, zip, nada. A president could be elected without the majority of the black vote, but not without a significant portion of the white vote. I know, it sucks, but that is the math. Thus your constant attempt to draw attention away from Wright's hateful words, which in truth are ingrained in him through his indoctrination into Mr Cone's black liberation theology. And anyone that dares to get in your way gets the racist label thrown at them.
All these red herrings of yours, your constant going on about Ron Paul and racist connections when everyone with at least half a brain realized he didn't have a snowball's chance of becoming POTUS. But that doesn't matter to you in your rope a dope, red herring, ignore the man behind the curtain "mainstreaming" of black liberation theology, now does it?
What really pisses you off is that you have self identified as a black person and now someone here dares to challenge you. It is quite a change from the spineless, must be politically correct crowd that would cower to your responses supporting the black racists for fear of having the divine queen label them a racist.
"How is the weather at the beach?"
Do I look like the weatherman/weatherwoman? If you want to know, turn on the weather channel. I don't live on the beach. I heard Obama is going on vacation there though.
Being the "typical white person" I am too afraid to go to Beacon Hill so I am not going to ask about the weather there. You will have to excuse me. You see, it was "bred into" me.
also, I haven't been called "dude" since the mid-80's or so...are you in a time warp?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2008 08:05 AMWVH @72: Thanks. I am trying to be fair minded and also do my own research and not just trust a single news source.
RE: Several comments regarging UCC and association with Trinity
1. The UCC as a denomination evaluates Pastoral candidates to make sure they meet a certain set of guidelines. I believe they have a requirement that all have Mastor's Degrees from Theological seminaries, which Reverend Wright meets this standard.
2. The UCC also gets involved in Pastoral selection by a congregation through its rules on how the process is to occur. Their main oversight is to make sure process has met Equal Employment Opportunity requirements the denomination requires.
3. The UCC has a Congregational form of government as its history, which means it is the local church that hires/fires a pastor. The denomination can step in in case of heresy, but I assume the heresy would have to be brought by the congregation or another church in the local association. This is in contrast to the Catholic/Episcipal/Methodist form of higher leadership appointing pastors, and the Presbyterian structure where the Pastor belongs (membership) to the Presbytery, not the local church, and is hired jointed by the Presbytery and local Church.
4. The UCC's churches set up local, state level, and regional associations for fellowship and addressing of common issues across the churches, like policy issues. These associations, however, do not have direct control over local congregations. This is in contrast to the Catholic/Episcipal/Lutheran/Methodist model of a top down hierachy, and the Presbyterian, representative organizational model.
5. To be a member in a UCC church you have to confirm your belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and promise to be in fellowhip with the Church. The UCC is founded on reformed theology that has its roots with John Calvin. Common confessions for the reformed churches, like the UCC and Presbyterian, are the Apostles Creed, and the Westminster Confession. These summarizes a lot of the belief system in the church as a whole.
6. Trinity's adoption of the Black Theology System is above and beyond the denomination. While it is addition to the theology, I can't remember from my UCC upbringing whether it can be brought as being heresy. In looking at the precepts stated by Trinity, I don't see anything in them that rejects the foundation creeds and confessions (e.g., Apostles Creed and Westminster Confession). One of my complaints with UCC is that they have been too tolerant of edge theologies that I feel push the bounds of the foundational creeds, especially in the are of Gender neutrafication of the Bible and God, and allow women pastor's to promote non-biblical worship of other Gods. This has occurred in my own denomination also, but the Presbyterian Church has a discipline system in place for church's/presbyteries to handle these issues. The UCC doesn't really have a solid discipline system, which is also the case with a lot of congregational based churches, like Baptist churches, and especially the case with non-denominational churches that are not bound by any hierachy to keep them in line with the overal theology. I would agree that if Trinity is out of line, theologically, the denonmination should step in, however, I also know that this is where the denomination as a whole is very week, given its strong congregational form of government. This is different than the top-down churches, like the Catholic, Episcipal, Lutheran, and Methodist Churches, and the Presbyterian churches who have representative forms of control (session at local level, and presbyteries at regional level). Just a side note: Whenever you see the headlines that the Presbyterian General Assembly made some policy decision and that is how now the Presbyterian Churches believe, the press is wrong. For a policy to become part of the Presbyterian Church Book of Order (legal document all churches have to abide by), it has to be approved by two-thirds of the Presbyteries across the country. The Presbyteries are made up of all the pastors within the presbytery region and an equal or greater number of lay elders (current or former session members, who are ordained elders in the church and hold equal standing to ordained pastors). This doesn't mean churches, even presbyteries, don't try to push the envelope. Right now the big two issues are ordination (pastor, elder, or deacon) of gays, and tied with it the Book of Order statement that the Presbyteries hold the local church's land in trust, thus those churches that want to may not be able to take the land their church resides on with them.
Re: Black Theology statements
TWP stated that Black Theology was based on James Cone. This is not exactly accurate. Here is a Wikipedia summary of Black Theologies roots. It is correct to state that James Cone was a very infuential theologian that contributed to Black Theology, but it is incorrect to attribute James Cones own beliefs with the overall Black Theology movement. Also, it should be noted that Martin Luther King, who we now elevate, also was a member of the Black Theology movement. Like I stated earlier, there is nothing in the stated Black Theology Values System as posted on Trinity's website that is in heretical opposition to the UCC's foundational doctrine. They simply target the mission focus o the church. They also do not state the James Cone statement quoted by TWP above. If they did, then they would be in heresy of reformed theology, in my opinion, just as the women pastor's that participated in Sophia worship are in heresy of reformed theology.
It is like my own church as specific focus missions, like Tacoma ministries, like participating in the Friday night Under the Bridge ministry of feeding the homeless and working poor, target missions to support missionaries involved in Burma, building of medical faciliies and schools in Swaziland, and supporting Whitworth College in Spokane (a Presbyterian College).
Posted by: tc on March 23, 2008 08:37 AMUmmm if adhering to a "black values" system isn't exclusionary, please elaborate on that retarded logic.
tc~ the key to not digging a bigger hole is to get rid of the shovel........I see you've employed a jackhammmer to get through the rock bottom.
My advice? quit digging.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2008 09:25 AMLike many fashion trends, dude is recyled, dude.
Apparently, you aren't getting that the United Church of Christ is a denomination. Here is their home page:
http://www.ucc.org/low.html
Here is their statement of beliefs:
Testimonies, not tests of the faith
The United Church of Christ embraces a theological heritage that affirms the Bible as the authoritative witness to the Word of God, the creeds of the ecumenical councils, and the confessions of the Reformation. The UCC has roots in the "covenantal" tradition--meaning there is no centralized authority or hierarchy that can impose any doctrine or form of worship on its members. Christ alone is Head of the church. We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith. The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith. Linked on the right of this page are some of those testimonies.
http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/
Rev. Wright's church is a member of the denomination the United Church of Christ. So, in your opinion, since every single member of Rev. Wright's Church is equivalent to a member of the Klu Kluz Klan, are they out of compliance with their denomination and shouldn't Rev. Wright be defrocked if his church is out of compliance?
No where have I defended any sort of bigotry or racism. I am simply asking you questions.
Nice red herrings. However, note that I talked specifically about TUCC which is the specific church Wright ran, not the entire UCC. Oh and to give credit where it is due, WVH originally threw out that red herring, so you are a day late and a dollar short on that one.
I do however give you credit for the slight of hand in altering my original topic Black Liberation Theology into Black Theology, thus removing the word liberation in an attempt to pull slight of hand and thus assist in mainstreaming a hateful racist theology. Citing wikipedia is useless as wikipedia is not based upon any scholarly standards and can be altered by anyone to say anything.
Your attempt to minimize Cone's involvement as the found of the BLT is also a red herring. Rev Wright himself has thrown out Cone as the founder in interviews, and as Rev Wright is at the center of the controversy, we shall go with his words, not some Obama supporter aimed at doing damage control.
"They also do not state the James Cone statement quoted by TWP above. "
We do know they have altered their home page from what it originally stated as a damage control response to the controversy by Wright. Wright hhimself has stated in interviews the church is based upon Cone's philosophy.
Obama was the one who mentioned his faith, told us all how he was a different breed of politician who would bring us all together. Then people looked behind the curtain and found Rev Wright and his hateful racist statements. Oh he is benign we were told. And Obama did not repdudiate Wright, instead he excused Wright by telling us all that about his white racists grandmother and how she is a "typical white person". Listening to Wright himself, he refers to Cone as he told Sean Hannity to go read Cone's book. And when we read Cone's book we find even more vile racist trash and now there is no doubt where Rev Wright got his inspiration. One can only wonder who the next black racist will be to get mention when Cone himself is interviewed.
One can choose their pastor of 20 years. One cannot choose their relatives. Wright is not a relative to Obama yet Obama defended him. In contrast, Obama's own white grandmother, a women who, in his own words, clothed him, fed him, raised him, gets outed on national television as just another racist a "typical white person".
How's the weather on Beacon Hill today WVH? You and the others have a good talk on getting the "white enemy"?
Posted by: TypicalWhitePerson on March 23, 2008 03:00 PM1. Guess what, since the 60s, Black people can live any where. Guess you don't recognize the Civil Rights struggle. Beacon Hill is a great diverse community. Great Asian restaurants. You would probably hate it, because it is nothing like Pacific Beach. Several churches there are multi-racial. Even though it is a great community, I don't live there. Uummm, if it wasn't for the fact that there probably is a KKK unit there, I probably would be looking to move next door to you. Well, there go the property values.
2. Now, Rev. Wright's church is affliated with the United Church of Christ. Their belief statement says this:
"....We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith. The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies, but not tests of the faith. Linked on the right of this page are some of those testimonies."
http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/
Note this phrase:
"....The UCC therefore receives the historic creeds and confessions of our ancestors as testimonies...."
Even though this denomination is highly decentralized, every denomination has a procedure for kicking those to the curb who are so far out of bounds to really not be part of the faith such as devil worshipers, pedophiles, KKK members and the like. So, if you want to add Rev. Wright's name to that list, find a disgruntled Church of Christ member and have them start the procedure to get Rev. Wright and his former church disassociated.
There is nothing any one that can say that will change the message of hate of certain posters. Best wishes to you and yours, this Easter. I have no clue what the ultimate outcome of this election will be. I look forward to having you join in the struggle against "mainstreamers." They and their hatred will be around long after this election.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 03:44 PMGuess what WVH, since the emancipation proclamation black people could live anywhere they wanted. Though after Lincoln freed the slaves, the Democratic Party did all they could to keep black people down.
I don't live in Pacific Beach so I cannot tell you what the restaurants are like, the church's and so forth. But looking at the map, I see it is in Grays Harbour county and that county votes overwhelmingly for Democrats. So if you told me the KKK was in that county, I couldn't say I'd be surprised.
It is no more for me to go to the TUCC and weed out black racists than it is for you to go to North Idaho church of the Aryan Nations and weed out their white racists.
That no member has stepped forth to do what you state is a testament to the fertile soil the racist Rev Wright finds for his hateful words. The crowds jumping to their feet in joyful approval of the hateful words or the racist Rev Wright tell the tale.
Your red herring distraction won't deter me from pointing out mainstreamers such as tc/wvh who defend black racists and their followers.
There is no politically correct racism. None. Hate and racism are wrong and no amount of PC justification for modern day black racists will ever change that. Racism against white people doesn't lift up black people it doesn't avenge past wrongs for blacks, it drags them down in the gutter with the white racists.
I hope one day that even hardened mainstreamers such as yourself will learn that lesson.
Yes, the TUCC bunch will be around even after this election. At least their message of hate is transparent unlike that of yours WVH.
You've been exposed as the David Duke "type" you speak of on these threads.
Dude, you just don't know your history. You said:
"Guess what WVH, since the emancipation proclamation black people could live anywhere they wanted. Though after Lincoln freed the slaves, the Democratic Party did all they could to keep black people down."
Restrictive Covenants remained in place until 1968 and the deeds of some homes who have remained in one family still have the language on the deed.
Here is some info on restricitive real estate covenants in Seattle:
HistoryLink Essay: Seattle Civic Unity Committee denounces ...Detail of restrictive covenant for View Ridge neighborhood, Seattle, 1950 ... 1994), 84, 178; Seattle Real Estate Board, "Articles of Incorporation, ...
www.historylink.org/_output.cfm?file_id=3153
The Seattle Times: Local News: Homeowners find records still hold ...Restrictive covenants are only one element of the UW's Seattle Civil Rights and ... Craig Duncan, president of the homeowners association at Broadmoor, ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297312_covenants03m.html
The Seattle Times: Opinion: Stain of racism still haunts Seattle ...JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES. Racist covenants restricted who could live in many ... It was not just in wealthy neighborhoods that real-estate firms and ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002913362_jamesgregory06.html
HistoryLink Essay:Seattle Civic Unity Committee denounces ...Real estate developers often included discriminatory language in the original plans for ... Grant Pankey, "Restrictive Covenants in Seattle: A Study in Race ...
historyink.com/essays/printer_friendly/index.cfm?file_id=3153
[Uwhistory] Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History ProjectThe law was inspired by the restrictive covenant database collected by UW students ... It was not just in wealthy neighborhoods that real-estate firms and ...
mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/uwhistory/2006-April/000272.html
Neighborhoods in Seattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRestrictive covenants remained legal in Seattle until 1968, [18] though changing real estate covenants to comply with the open housing ordinance was not ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_neighborhoods
Search Results | Seattle Times NewspaperJobs; Autos; Rentals; Real Estate; NWsource .... Restrictive covenants are only one element of the UW's Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, ...
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=covenants03m&date=200506... -
©2008 Google - Google Home - - Business Solutions - About Google
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 09:40 PMI have often thought that Minister Farrakan and David Duke and their followers should be left on an island to co-exist with each other. The instrument of hate operates in both groups. If I had a wish, one of them would be to put you and Rev. Wright on an island. Yep, both of you will be around after the election.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 09:44 PMTypicalWhitePerson: You know what, you do not speak for White People. You do not represent my views. You do not represent the views of my co-workers, who are predominantly white. You do not represent the views of the co-workers at my previous place of employment, who where also mostly white. You do not represent the view of the bulk of the congregation where I go to church, who probably had close to 5000 worship this Sunday morning for Easter. You do not represent the views of the parents on the various sports teams my kids have been involved in within the community. You may represent the views of your community, and if so, I sure would not like to live there.
Posted by: tc on March 23, 2008 10:05 PMLink: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/staying-in-a-ch.html
I especially like the C.S. Lewis quote:
"... the search for a 'suitable' church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil.
What He wants of the layman in church is an attitude which may, indeed, be critical in the sense of rejecting what is false or unhelpful, but which is wholly uncritical in the sense that it does not appraise - does not waste time in thinking about what it rejects, but lays itself open in uncommenting, humble receptivity to any nourishment that is going. ... There is hardly any sermon, or any book, which may not be dangerous to us if received in this temper."
TC,
From your own link @101, the TUCC talking points:
Dr. Wright's talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show):
• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. 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's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
So, the vision statement starts with James Cone. I didn't write that, the Rev Wright himself wrote that. And what does James Cone say on the subject???
He says:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
TypicalWhitePerson: You know what, you do not speak for White People. You do not represent my views. You do not represent the views of my co-workers, who are predominantly white. You do not represent the views of the co-workers at my previous place of employment, who where also mostly white. You do not represent the view of the bulk of the congregation where I go to church, who probably had close to 5000 worship this Sunday morning for Easter. You do not represent the views of the parents on the various sports teams my kids have been involved in within the community. You may represent the views of your community, and if so, I sure would not like to live there. "
Did you write that up yourself? Yet another red herring offered up by the PC hate mainstreamers.
You do not speak for all white people. You do not represent the views of people in my community or many other communities in which I have lived because in those communities there is no politically correct brand of racism and hate, in my communities it is all wrong. Perhaps if you attended a church that wasn't predominantly white, or worked where the people weren't predominantly white, your skewed viewpoint might change. Unlike you, in my community there are people of all races shapes and sizes. We treat each other with respect as we would like to be treated. You might try that some time.
I denounce David Duke, Hagee, Wright and Cone. I do not defend any of them, which is more than I can say for tc/tensor/wvh and all the other politically correct hate monger apologist posters here.
There is no "correct" kind racism and hatred. All that does is continue a cycle of violence. This used to be what leftist/progressives said they wanted. But if your 5,000 parents of the kids in your community tc/tensor/wvh defend a church whose vision statement originates from a man who states he has to "kill the white enemy", then by looking the other way, because the victim is white and not black, only shows how morally bankrupt you are and the falseness of your church of the politically correct racists.
One man kills another. Is it an excuse for that man to point to another man who killed someone else? Are we to say "Well then, since the other chap also killed someone, I suppose we ought to let you go. On your way then." ?
This is the what you offer.
Posted by: TypicalWhitePerson on March 24, 2008 12:53 AMMy nom de plume is a play on words in reference to the gross stereotype Obama made regarding his grandma being a white racists and that is what one finds of a "typical white person".
If perhaps you read the actual news instead of the PC talking points from KOS, you'd have known that.
I changed it so ignorant people such as yourself will get it.
Posted by: Obama's, TypicalWhitePerson on March 24, 2008 01:01 AMRacism in Democratic Seattle? Do tell. That can't be, progressives are so politically correct and all.
Or so we're told.
The peculiar theology of black liberation
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html
Please go read the entire article. Then read it again.
Posted by: Obama's, TypicalWhitePerson on March 24, 2008 01:15 AMAll Cities had restrictive covenants and that would include those where republicans were in the majority. Your ignorance of history is showing. It has nothing to do with progressivism or conservatism, it has to do with HATE. A topic you should be familiar with as that is the fuel that drives your engine. I'm with tc on this one. You will appear on another thread, with another moniker and the message of hate will still be the same.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 02:50 AM