What Is Black Liberation Theology?
Slarti, in a comment at MCB, had this to say about Black Liberation Theology.
Are you familiar with Black Liberation Theology, and its mother - Liberation Theology? Although they first came to prominence in Latin America, they were ultimately the brainchild of marxist thinkers in Ivy League schools who wished to advance their political goals through religious conviction.
It’s another conversation for another day, but Liberation Theologies are heresy, because they, at most, use Christ as a prop or illustration. Christ is most assuredly not at the center, as is, I think, a requirement for a church to call itself “Christian”.
Interesting. Since we don’t really know much about Obama, other than he is possibly the most talented orator of our generation, maybe we should learn a little bit about this Black Liberation Theology?
For a wonderfully biased view, I found this from the Daily Thinker.
For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that “He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about…the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.’”
Not very Martin Luther King-ish. Further, all the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright — more an apostle of the left than the Christian church — the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It’s the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I’ll specify the “else.” Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets.
Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government — and they want badly to run it.
Just call it racism and be done with it.
Obama had to pull the plug on the preacher man from his web page, and he’s again forced to clean it up after embracing the New Black Panther Party’s endorsement.
Oh, from the Trinity Universal Church Website…
I’m going to try another link..next post.
Then, from Dr. James Cone’s book….
This information gathered by Karl at PW, and Michelle Malkin. (Love that pshop, there, that’s good stuff…)
Glen Dean: Uniter? Divider?
.
Truth Discloser.
Light Bringer To-er.
Wow…That is revelating. Thanks for that, serr8d!
JP: If you’re referring to Jerry Wright, he’s definitely a divider. Now Martin Luther King, now HE’s a uniter!
Dr. King’s rhetoric didn’t differ from Wright’s by anywhere near the degree you might think it did. And in his time, he was considered to be plenty divisive. It’s only through the rose-colored glasses of history that he’s become viewed more positively, and there are plenty alive even today who don’t share that view.
To be clear, I agree that Dr. King was a uniter, in the grand scheme of things. I just think you vastly overstate the difference between Dr. King and Rev. Wright.
Truth Discloser.
Picker of nits. Swallower of camels; strainer of gnats. Finder of faults in candidates he wouldn’t DREAM of casting a ballot to elect.
Save up yer salt if you’re reading Glen Dean’s opinion.
.
Have you lost your mind????? Dr. King never in any way said God damn America. Nothing of the sort. He wanted equality. Peace among all of us. I don’t think as many people as you believe hated Dr. King as much as you would like to think. He wanted the black and white kids to play without a thought of color. Why is it that you or anyone for that matter has to point out color so often. I was disturbed with what Obama’s pastor said. He honestly had my vote before all of that. I can’t believe that you can defend it. What if it were McCain’s pastor that made those remarks. He would be bashed from one end to the other, and you Tgirsch would probably be the loudest. I don’t promote racism on either side. The difference with you is that racism is only one sided. Apparently black people can’t be considered racist, b/c if someone tries to say that they are, they must be…….what do ya know…… RACIST!
Anon: You’re absolutely right.
Tgirsch: Go compare MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech and Jeremiah Wright’s “speeches”. Come back when you’re more informed, and we’ll discuss it.
Of course Dr. King wanted equality. But his ideas about how to get there were not at all dissimilar to what people like Rev. Wright call for. For example:
According to this calculator, $50 billion in 1965 would be about $331 billion in today’s dollars.
As to the remarks themselves, I would expect McCain to denounce the remarks similarly, but the McCain-to-Obama comparison isn’t exactly apples-to-apples. Wright had an honorary role in the Obama campaign, which he no longer holds. McCain actively sought the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, and even appeared at a rally with him, even though his anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-gay, and anti-Muslim statements were commonly known and a matter of public record. I don’t quite see how those two things equate.
And for the record, I’ve never argued that racism is one-sided. Quite the opposite, actually. But that’s not what’s relevant here. What’s relevant is whether or not the candidate is a bigot, and whether that candidate actively seeks out the support of bigots. One candidate in this race has done the latter, and his name isn’t Obama.
Eric:
If the sum total of your knowledge of Dr. King is his Dream speech, then it’s you who should go educate yourself, not me.
People in glass houses, and all that…
Oh, if you have time and want to read the best “Obama Speech” post I’ve found on the web, here it is. Solid work, there.
Good job Glen I think you just wrapped it up right there. The difference is that Christians are suppose to teach love(as Jesus did), but Islam is all about hating christians. I love all people, gay, lesbian,islam, even tgrisch. I don’t agree with the things they do, or believe in, but none the less I am here to show all love. The judgement is left up to our creator, and believe me, what a day it will be when these people find out the truth.
Love and hate are powerful emotions. Any emotional state is subject to change depending on a person’s personal mix of hormones, at any given instant. Best to not throw terms around like ‘love’ and ‘hate’ with reckless abandon; those two bookend emotions are like the two zero points of a bell curve. Neither extreme point on that curve is easily reached, or maintained, for very long.
I love my family without qualification. I don’t hate anyone that I can think of. I detest certain individuals, usually because of their actions, but actions can change, and detest can turn around.
As for gays, humans have built-in biological referents that have allowed us, as a species, to stay alive over the millions of years of our history. Two important repulsions that helped us stick around (ensuring survivability) were the instinctual repugnances towards homosexual behavior and cannibalism. Neither trait is survival-based, and normal people’s feelings of revulsion towards either is just that…normal.
I don’t think Glen was being judgemental, I think he was pointing out the obvious. When somebody admits to something and you just repeat what they say, you aren’t judging. I think you should hitch a ride with your wife to church this easter Sunday. She is obvoiusly the better half.
I’m glad you live a good life, but sorry to say that won’t be enough on the day of judgement, and you will be a little ashamed as you are face down in his presence, as even myself, and Glen for that matter, will be. How can you look at your children, or even your wife, and not believe that there is a God? I know when I look in the eyes of my baby girl, that she didn’t come from a spinning ball of matter, or a fish, or a rock. She came from the perfect hands of our almighty God. How can you argue with that? I just don’t understand….. 
it’s so sad to me.
tgirsch, that topic was covered in my Intro Psych course, at the University of Arizona, in 1976. The topic, then, didn’t have the overtures of political correctness that democratically dominate our learned learning institutions today. I’m sure that if I were to dig out that textbook, or my class notes, I could find it; but frankly, you’re sneering question doesn’t deserve the effort.
anon:
I think you should hitch a ride with your wife to church this easter Sunday.
I’ve been to church with her several times, actually. I was raised Catholic, so I’ve been to literally hunrdeds of Catholic masses. And I’ve probably been to half a dozen of my wife’s services. Then again, she’s a member of the United Church of Christ (same denomination as Rev. Wright’s church), so you’re not likely to think that’s a “good” one. I’ve also been to a few Lutheran and Presbyterian services, and I graduated from a Presbyterian college, where some religious studies were required. All of which is to say, I’m pretty familiar with Christian theology.
I’m glad you live a good life, but sorry to say that won’t be enough on the day of judgement
That’s assuming that you’re right about what your imaginary friend in the sky wants, and billions of others are wrong about what their imaginary friends in the sky want.
How can you argue with that?
I can’t, not in any way that would resonate with you. Your deeply-held beliefs are exactly that: deeply held. But that doesn’t make them rational. In fact, you don’t even pretend that they are. Instead, you view them to be axiomatic.
Serr8d:
Yes, because our understanding of the human psychology in 1976 was perfect and correct, and it was “political correctness” that undermined that sort of reasoning. I bet I could find all sorts of laughable claims in a 19-friggin-76 textbook.
What do you want me to say, that the thought of some guy ramming another guy is a really wonderful thought?
Given that it’s not your predilection, I can’t for the life of me even fathom why you would think about it, at ALL. Are all rugged individualists so obsessed with the lives of others? I would have thought “live and let live” would be a more apt credo for such libertarian sorts.
.
Jeffro, it’s not that we want it to ever even cross our minds, or sully our thoughts.
Me, for instance, would prefer that stuff just stay….closeted. Don’t ask, and all of that.
But, given that this is the “Immoral Age” where anything goes (except for morality itself, of course), the stuff is shoved in our collective faces, in every public venue imaginable. Pop culture embraces (and disseminates) the LBGT lifestyle. We can’t escape; TV, movies, on the streets, everywhere.
That’s why, when you see issues like ‘gay ‘marriage” on open ballots, you see a backlash.
(I’ve always wondered, not being a ‘backdoor’ man much, how you put up with the…you know, feces?)
The argument, oft-repeated by conservatives, that the modern age is somehow “less moral” than previous times, really irks me.
I mean, yes, sexual morality is quite a bit different than it was 50 years ago. But then, 50 years ago a woman’s place was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, black people had to use separate facilities and otherwise had less-than-full rights, and you actually needed a really good reason to go invade somebody.
Sorry, but I’ll take today’s individual sexual immorality over the collective repression of entire classes of people any day of the week. In the grand scheme of things, the “morals” of yesteryear don’t even light a candle to today’s.
Face it: Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be!
We can’t escape; TV, movies, on the streets, everywhere.
You’re seeing gay people having anal sex on TV, in the movies, on the streets… everywhere? I don’t think so.
That’s pretty lame, even for you. The vaunted free market has already solved this problem, providing plenty of entertainment (which is not an entitlement, last I checked) that pretends gay people don’t even exist. I say if the Amish can avoid these things, you must not be as sincere in your objections to modern culture as you make out to be.
.
There is really no hope here. If you believe anything, you are considered judgmental and worse than somebody who believes nothing. I don’t force people to believe what I believe. I even stand up for the rights for those who have completely different beliefs. But that isn’t enough. No I have to just announce that I believe in absolutely nothing, in order to not be considered judgmental.
Like I said before. To each his own. Live and let live. In your response, you misrepresented me. I never said that anybody was going to hell. I don’t believe that homosexuality will keep people from going to heaven. Also you said something about “leading off with…pedophile”. I thought I made it clear that I don’t do that. I don’t insult people who believe in Islam. People that adhere to a strict moral code and fall prostrate and pray everyday are worthy of respect. Nor do I insult homosexuals and tell them that they are wrong. Once again you made an assumption. As long as what somebody is doing does not affect me or somebody else, I don’t bother them. But heaven forbid, I actually do have a set of beliefs. In fact, I violate many of them myself on a daily basis. That’s why I don’t judge people and condemn them for their actions. Also, I admit that I could be wrong on some things.
Do you have a moral code Tgirsch? If so, then obviously you are judgmental. Right?
I mean, it had to take a little bit of judging to decide that I was such a horrible human being. Didn’t it?
(I’ve always wondered, not being a ‘backdoor’ man much, how you put up with the…you know, feces?)
Well, since you’re not “much,” I daresay you have more experience with that than I do. What did YOU do about it?
.