Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quite a bit can be found online, in his own words even. We have forgotten much of what we heard and read when Obama was still 'under his tutelage' in association with him.
It was commonly charged that Wright and his church disliked white people, an impression that was not hard to come by; his claim that the white man was an active enemy of the black man surely preached division and hate, not equality and unity and love.
I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?
Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.
Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later.
There are numerous other errors (or omissions) in the article.
Breaking with his parents' Baptist denomination, Wright recognized that at Trinity he could have complete authority to implement his vision.
Authority in UCC congregations rests with the congregation not the minister.
It would be the Gospel according to Wright. Trinity's slogan would be "Unapologetically Black and Unapologetically Christian."
First off that is not Trinity's slogan and secondly the slogan was adopted prior to Rev. Wright's ministry.
In his church-associated Kwame Nkrumah Academy, the congregation's children learned such canards as the claim that "[h]istorically, Europeans tried to build themselves up by tearing down all that Africans had done."
Kwame Nkrumah Academy wasn't started until after Rev. Wright had retired and attendance is not limited to the congregation.
Where in the article does it show Rev. Wright, in his own words and not those of the author, preaching hate towards whites.
I would note the the UCC is predominately (90%+) white. Rev Wright voluntarily worked for the predominately white denomination for 36 years. He could have advocated that Trinity leave the UCC and they would have been free to do so, but he did not.
Of course, we can always count on you to tell us what is and what isn't a "fact."
Though the Founders wisely prohibited the Congress from establishing a religion (an officially recognized church, such as the Church of England) it is a historical fact that the the Colonists were Christians of various sects. So, I think it's safe to say that at our founding, we were in fact "a Christian nation." I can't help it if that offends you. History is what it is. You can't change it.
Still does not change the fact that we are not a christian nation, never was. Just because our founding fathers were christian, does not make our country christian one bit. It does not offend me, what offends me is the christians that seem to think this is a christian nation and exclude that we are a nation of many beliefs. Their ego astounds me.
Thats not true. In fact when this nation was formed there were numerous state sponsored churches.
Operative word here is "were".
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
By "sponsoring," what do you mean?
The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What do the words, "make no law" mean to you? An establishment of religion means establishing one religion as the only officially recognized religion.
When you start playing word games, instead of sticking to the words actually written in the Constitution, you start to imply other meanings that aren't intended.
You're just trying to mince words and deflect because you know I'm right.
Didn't even make it through the first sentence without knowing the rest of the article is crap.
Where in the article does it show Rev. Wright, in his own words and not those of the author, preaching hate towards whites.
I would note the the UCC is predominately (90%+) white. Rev Wright voluntarily worked for the predominately white denomination for 36 years. He could have advocated that Trinity leave the UCC and they would have been free to do so, but he did not.
His church was not "predominantly white".
Maybe you should have read the entire article. Maybe, instead of citing a personal anecdote, you can comment on Wright's ideology which is more germane to the discussion.
One does not have to use the word "hate". It is far more subtle than that. Obama does not say he 'hates' the wealthy, or the middle class, or whites but, where he promised to unite, all he has done is divide. Wright's examples were well learned and taken to heart.
Wright's entire ideology permeates his preaching, which revolves around that of the white man being an enemy of the black man, and the black man being superior.
Surely that is preaching division and hate, not equality and unity and love.
Pastor Pastor Michael V. Williams, who uses his online platform to "teach political lessons based on conservative Christian ideology," is advocating for a new constitutional amendment that will punish LGBT people with ten years of hard labor for the crime of being gay.
“It’s time for Christians to resume obeying God and his word, and to re-criminalize homosexuality, outlaw it again,†the pastor continues. “The only way to do this and keep it beyond the reach of activist judges and unaccountable bureaucrats is to create a constitutional amendment.â€
His proposed amendment states that the United States is a Christian nation based on Christian ethics, morals and principles, and as such, the practice of homosexuality "shall be a felony punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor."
The funniest part of this is that he claims the reason this amendment is needed is because Christians have been "too tolerant" of gays for the last 50 years. They have? Really? You have to wonder what alternate reality the good pastor has actually been living in for the last half a century.
He and any Church he is the Pastor of should lose their tax exempt status for ten years and not regain it unless they can learn to stay out of politics. One has to pay to play.
Still does not change the fact that we are not a christian nation, never was. Just because our founding fathers were christian, does not make our country christian one bit. It does not offend me, what offends me is the christians that seem to think this is a christian nation and exclude that we are a nation of many beliefs. Their ego astounds me.
the Pilgrims came to this country for freedom of religion, they did not want to let the Church of England rule over them. The Pilgrims were christian.
Maybe you should have read the entire article. Maybe, instead of citing a personal anecdote, you can comment on Wright's ideology which is more germane to the discussion.
One does not have to use the word "hate". It is far more subtle than that. Obama does not say he 'hates' the wealthy, or the middle class, or whites but, where he promised to unite, all he has done is divide. Wright's examples were well learned and taken to heart.
Wright's entire ideology permeates his preaching, which revolves around that of the white man being an enemy of the black man, and the black man being superior.
Surely that is preaching division and hate, not equality and unity and love.
I did read the full article which is why I know and sited several of the factual errors in the article.
Trinity UCC is voluntarily a member of the UCC. They can leave the UCC anytime the congregation desires. Trinity also voluntarily supports the UCC with thousands of dollars every year. The UCC is predominantly white (90%+). Hardly the actions of an entity that is anti-white. So Wright's example was not to separate from his fellow white members of the UCC.
The personal anecdote from a white member of Trinity points out just one of the fallacies in the article.
When has Rev. Wright ever claimed the black man was superior to the white man? That is not Wright's ideology.
Rev. Wright at the NPC in 2008
The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us. Reconciliation does not mean that blacks become whites or whites become blacks and Hispanics become Asian or that Asians become Europeans.
Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us. We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority, hatred, or prejudice.
And we recognize for the first time in modern history in the West that the other who stands before us with a different color of skin, a different texture of hair, different music, different preaching styles, and different dance moves, that other is one of God's children just as we are, no better, no worse, prone to error and in need of forgiveness, just as we are.
Rev. Wright on Hannity and Colmes show in 2007
WRIGHT: OK. The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history.
It comes from the principles of Kawaida, the second principle being Kuji Salawi (ph), which is self-determination, us naming ourselves, and not saying we are superior to anybody. We have no hierarchical arrangement.
Rev Wright has preached against the ideas and concept of white supremacy, but not against whites because of their skin color. In fact I have even seen him interrupt and correct another speaker at a seminar when the person started to denigrate whites.
Last edited by WilliamSmyth; 08-27-2014 at 12:33 PM..
Anybody whow promotes hate in the name of Jesus Christ does not deserve the title of pastor. Both Jesus and St. Paul warned of false profits. This f***nut with the black cowboy hat clearly falls into that category. However, the constitution grants him the right to say whatever stupid and malicious thoughts he feels like saying. The best thing for the rest of us to do is ignore him.
I simply cannot fathom why some "Christians" are so obsessed with the actions of Homosexual people.
I simply cannot fathom why some "Christians" are so obsessed with the actions of Homosexual people.
This really is the million dollar question. Why the heck do they care so much about what other pepole are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Like you, I can't fathom it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
