Is Obama hurting the Democratic Party by not joining forces with Hilla

[Mavfin]

[stuff]

Boys! Boys! Keep it civil, or I'll have to start editing stuff....
Don't get personal, please.

[Jester]

As you were responding to me, in someone calling you something related to Hitler, rather than your fellow bloviator in this thread, I had to infer there was some connection between who you were speaking with, me at that point, and any charge of Godwinnian nature. Why you would wish for me to answer to you for what kandrathe may or may not have called you is a puzzle.

I didn't say anything about someone calling me Hitler. I said I was skeptical of people making comparisons to Hitler.

I apologise if it seemed like I was throwing what Kandrathe said at you. I assumed your comments were directed at the thread in general, and not simply at our little aside. The inability to view things in Outline mode, as I usually would to keep discussions separate, also did not help.

Which is not to say you haven't made some pretty exaggerated comments in this thread. But you haven't called me Hitler, or compared someone under discussion to Hitler, or anything like that, and I apologise again for any implication that you did.

-Jester

[Jester]

Jestrification again.

Good that it's getting airplay. It won't make the OED unless we repeat it! (Maybe a few more for good measure... Jestrification! Jestrification! Jestrification!)

Do you read what I write? If you do, it must must spin around inside your head and come out as something totally different. For example, did you read where I wrote, "David Koresh is a horrible comparison to Wright in all ways..."? I meant that.

Okay. And when you said that Jim Jones was a better comparison, moving from one suicide cult lunatic to another suicide cult lunatic, I'm sure you were just trying to find appropriate examples of a charismatic religious leader, and just happened to come across David Koresh, and having found that example ridiculously overblown, immediately went for a more moderate analogy... Jim "Drink the Kool-Aid" Jones.

And, when pressed on that one, who do we get? Bob Jones. I'm assuming you're talking about the first one, although it's not like the son or grandson are much less crazy. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones%2C_Sr. ) This man was a segregationist and a supporter of the Klan who apparently thought that opposition to state racism was opposition to God. So, I'm not really seeing this as much of a compromise, although admittedly his name, unlike your "horrible" Koresh and "better" Jim Jones, does not conjure images of hundreds of dead bodies.

Examples matter, Kandrathe. They honestly do. You can't just keep picking the most evil, the most crazy, the most outrageous people in the world, compare them to Wright, and then get furious when someone doesn't understand your subtle distinction that you're only talking about the aspect of their personality that they share with a hundred thousand other religious leaders, rather than the things everyone associates their names with. Even your language is excessive. If you look up "cult of personality" in wikipedia, what do you get? North Korea. Stalin. Those are the images implied by that term. You've already gone down the Hitler road, with a similar "how dare you interpret me as meaning that!" protest. Either you are truly, deeply cursed at coming up with appropriate images and analogies in your arguments, or, on some level, you're intending these things.

How about next time you think of a comparison that is "a horrible comparison [...] in all ways", you maybe don't make it, rather than throwing it in there, throwing another nearly identical comparison next to it for good measure calling it "better", and then raging on when someone dares to think that you're being extreme?

Here's a little snippet from a biographer; "[... usual motivational speaker blurb crap...]" You don't consider that fawning?

It's a blurb about his accomplishments. You could find a similar one about any major public figure. Of course it's fawning, it's designed to be a rundown of his positive accomplishments. You're honestly putting this out as evidence that the man runs a cult of peronality? I could conjure one of those for the Dean of any University, the Governor of any State, the Pastor of any Church. That this is evidence that people offer their unquestioning, uncritical devotion to his word, his image, his icon? I don't even know what to say about that.

People line up to be seen by the guy. The president of the UCC called him a Prophet! Egads!

He is a popular religious leader with a busy public speaking schedule. He doesn't run a shrine to himself in a compound in the wilderness.

And the UCC believes in Prophecy. If you're going to go out on one limb and say he's a heretical crazy who has everyone over a barrel, you can't simultaneously argue that following a well-accepted aspect of that theology makes him a cult-of-personality nutcase. I don't think prophecy exists. I think it's a load of hooey. But they do, and they consider it part of the role of pastors (not all, not everyone is a prophet) to continue the prophetic tradition as a part of their faith. This is totally mainstream.

Consider how much TUCC has grown because of Rev. Wright, from a small church to now over 10,000 members. This is more than the good coffee, and the free cookies.

Trinity has grown by leaps and bounds. He made an appeal to a black community being led away from Christianity by groups like the Nation of Islam, and brought an interpretation of religion and a way of practicing it that reinvigorated faith in the Christian church. He was outspoken and dogged about many of the social justice issues that were of importance to the black communities of Chicago. He is friendly to his congregation and passionate about his religion. He is talented at the song and dance of delivering a sermon. As a pastor, he is a tremendous success story. His faith is well within the broad, inclusive span of UCC doctrine, which emphasizes social justice and flexibility regarding the peculiarities of different ways of worship. None of this is surprising. It might not be par for the course, where people come for the coffee, but running a successful congregation does not mean you've made yourself a religious icon.

Your notion that he is a fringe heretic who gets away with his madness because of a "cult of personality" is just bizarre.

-Jester

(Edit, for Mav: This is the end of the road for me on this mini-thread with Kandrathe, promise. It's too tempting to just degenerate into purest sarcasm, and that wouldn't help matters.)

[kandrathe]

Okay. And when you said that Jim Jones was a better comparison, moving from one suicide cult lunatic to another suicide cult lunatic, I'm sure you were just trying to find appropriate examples of a charismatic religious leader, and just happened to come across David Koresh, and having found that example ridiculously overblown, immediately went for a more moderate analogy... Jim "Drink the Kool-Aid" Jones.

If you read up on Jim Jones, prior to the running off to Guyana, his social activism and civic leadership was very similiar to what Wright is doing in Chicago. Now, in contrast to Wright, Jim Jones, was addicted to some kind of drugs and then according to Wikipedia... "He claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus, Akhenaten, the Buddha, Lenin, and Father Divine and performed supposed miracle healings to attract new converts. Members of Jones' church called him "Father" and believed their movement was the solution to the problems of society; many did not distinguish Jones from the movement. The church gradually moved away from mainstream Protestant Christianity."

Let me then for the sake of peace between us rescind the "cult of personality" and instead offer "charismatic leader". My belief is that TUCC will not be the same without Wright, and the people who came there mostly came there for him and his sermons.

So, this is my concern and the only parallels I'm drawing, a} charismatic leader of a large and growing flock, b} moving away from mainstream Christianity, c} more than fire and brimstone in these sermons -- more like politics, social activism and calling for a fight against a nebulous "enemy".

[Occhidiangela]

I didn't say anything about someone calling me Hitler. I said I was skeptical of people making comparisons to Hitler.

I apologise if it seemed like I was throwing what Kandrathe said at you. I assumed your comments were directed at the thread in general, and not simply at our little aside. The inability to view things in Outline mode, as I usually would to keep discussions separate, also did not help.

Which is not to say you haven't made some pretty exaggerated comments in this thread. But you haven't called me Hitler, or compared someone under discussion to Hitler, or anything like that, and I apologise again for any implication that you did.

-Jester

Uh, no need to apologize, it wasn't offensive to me, it was, as I said puzzling. But thanks anyway.

I have said enough in this thread, otherwise, there is no common ground to be found here.

Occhi