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

[Jester]

I was mulling over today whether it was worth coining a new word for your approach, Jestrification.

To Jestrification! May the term have widespread use and long life. I hope to see it in the OED within 5 years.

For the audience, feel free to go back and review Kandrathe's words, and mine. See whether or not he compared Wright with Hitler, and especially whether he specifically defended that comparison as legit. Judge for oneself if I have simply been obtuse in doggedly calling for even a single clear example of the bigotry, hatred and violence that has been imputed on Rev. Wright by Kandrathe.

I know I don't have friends from the ANC, and I certainly don't know anyone who has family that was "necklaced" in South Africa, so I certainly can't claim that kind of authority on this topic. I've never hired or promoted anyone, so I can't count that either. I am, after all, just a Jestrifier.

-Jester

Oh, and lock your children up at night, because I am enslaving you all. There must be more to this Jestrification thing than meets the eye!

:shuriken:

[kandrathe]

For the audience, feel free to go back and review Kandrathe's words, and mine. See whether or not he compared Wright with Hitler, and especially whether he specifically defended that comparison as legit.

Yeah, I'd like to see where I did that too. I remember asking you what your standards are for condemning bigots. A simple, "Yeah, I would have condemned it." would have sufficed. And, in my opinion, when the subject is racial hatred, antisemitism, and fiery orators my questioning the limits of your tolerance seemed an appropriate and acceptable comparison. Then, in every post since then you have posted ad-naseum about it. Even when I suggested that you skip it, since you can't seem to grasp what I was suggesting, you still can't stop.

[Jester]

Yeah, I'd like to see where I did that too.

Well, it started here...

As Pete said... "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Would you have condemned Hitler after he wrote "Mein Kampf", but before he acted out his sick manifesto?

... which is a strange thing to say in response to a post asking you to cite a single violent opinion of Rev. Wright's, given how trivial it is to cite one of Hitler's. By the standard I had just set for Wright, Hitler was obviously a violent racist lunatic, and all it would take was one quote among thousands to support it. Dozens of such quotes were readily available even before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, let alone afterwards. I assumed this was obvious. When I then followed up that post by pointing out that you'd just Godwinned the thread, you came back with this:

I think comparing a fiery bigoted orator who is calling for the destruction of the white enemy qualifies as an appropriate use.

Are you saying this "comparing" you are doing is not a comparison between Wright and Hitler? That one "firey bigoted orator who is calling for the destruction of the [racial] enemy" is much like another? Because if not, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you mean.

And, in my opinion, when the subject is racial hatred, antisemitism, and fiery orators my questioning the limits of your tolerance seemed an appropriate and acceptable comparison.

How is this not a comparison to Hitler? It might not be a straight up Wright = Hitler and that's that, but you're very clearly putting them as two of a kind.

Further explaining what you were doing, you wrote:

I connected the fiery rhetoric of one man who was in a position for inspiring a world war and massive genocide as an example of how horrible bigotry and racism can be.

And since you were in the process of discussing how Wright's (percieved) bigotry and racism was probably causing violence, you were comparing Wright to Hitler. How could you not be? You're saying they're the same type of thing, and that the one could lead to horrible violence just like the other. If that's not a comparison, I really don't know what it is.

Then, in every post since then you have posted ad-naseum about it. Even when I suggested that you skip it, since you can't seem to grasp what I was suggesting, you still can't stop.

One might even say I'm indefatigable! Jestrification lives on!

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It might not be a straight up Wright = Hitler and that's that, but you're very clearly putting them as two of a kind.

Yes, Wright is not equated to Hitler,but the fiery bigoted oration inspiring an oppressed and humiliated population is similar. That is why in the next question I asked you the same question about Farrakhan. Not two of a kind, and not three of a kind. I'm not familiar enough with the rantings of David Koresh, but he would be another similiar person who formed a cult of personality. Rhetorically, I'm asking if you condemn bigotry in all its expressions, even the most extreme. I'm not saying all forms of bigotry are to that extreme, for example, Don Imus's flippant stupid racial comment might have been a momentary slip up. You refuse to see between the lines, and instead choose to excuse Wright's blatant bigotry, support his adherence and promotion of Liberation Theology, and embrace his anti-Americanism. It was a valid exercise for you to ask me to show examples of his bigotry, which I've provided a few where text is available. It sure would be nice to have access to a library of transcripts, but that is not available. TUCC has also pulled most of their content and curriculum from the net in self defense. I also assume you've viewed the YouTube available content (and I agree many are edited out of context for Micheal Moore effect). The weight of readily available evidence is light, but it paints a picture extreme enough for Obama to condemn.

[Taem]

How can you guys even see the rest of this thread? I click on page 2 and only see one post. When I click on "Last Post" that post is in reply to my original post. The last 5-10 posts aren't visible in threaded view! Are they visible in non-threaded view? I really hate how this forum does that after a topic gets a certain amount of posts in it. Why does it do that? Well, this thread was only degenerating anyways, so I guess it's not too big of a loss, however it would be nice to not be limited to a certain number of posts per topic, IMO.

[Griselda]

I think it's a bug with threaded view when threads get too long. It turns out there were some things that Network54 did right way back when that modern forum software still can't do very well.

I've gone over to linear view in all but a few rare cases now.

How can you guys even see the rest of this thread? I click on page 2 and only see one post. When I click on "Last Post" that post is in reply to my original post. The last 5-10 posts aren't visible in threaded view! Are they visible in non-threaded view? I really hate how this forum does that after a topic gets a certain amount of posts in it. Why does it do that? Well, this thread was only degenerating anyways, so I guess it's not too big of a loss, however it would be nice to not be limited to a certain number of posts per topic, IMO.

[Chesspiece_face]

support his adherence and promotion of Liberation Theology,

Mind explaining in greater detail why you feel that this item is inherantly negative? You seem to have a tendency to brand Liberation Theology as something evil when i can only assume you mean to refer to Extremist Liberation Theology, or more specifically Extremist Black Liberation Theology. Conflating the two, however, is just as inaccurate as claiming that all muslims are terrorists (as long as we are making comparisons.)

I think it is absolutely true that items in Wright's beliefs are not only entirely offbase (aids being created to harm the Black community) but also destructive when taken in terms of healing race relations. But making the jump from possibly supporting animosity between peoples (whether inadvertantly or intentionally) and a call to violence is another story all together. As of yet, i've not found anything in Wright's words that can reasonably be construed as a support of violence as the answer. If however your point is more that any speech designed to incite anger over oppression could lead to violence than i'm not sure how to respond to that. Are we to accept oppression then because to stand up and oppose it could incite some to violence?

If you truly want to see if Wright's views and statements have an impact on violent behaviors (and you actually believe that the tools of such violence would be "the gloc and the drive by") than it wouldn't be that hard to make a correlation. Just look up the crime statistics in the chicago area and see if there is a statistically higher number of white victims of drive-bys and the like. These types of crimes are generally confined to Black on Black offenses rather than Black on White. If you can find a higher number of Black on White drive-bys than you could assume that there is something about chicago that is inciting or supporting those types of crimes where in other cities you don't find that relation.

Edit: Also (as long as we are making flimsy comparisons) branding all Black Liberation Theology as racist because the "oppressive society" is predominantly white is much like Marie Antionette decrying the french revolution as classist.

[Jester]

Yes, Wright is not equated to Hitler,but the fiery bigoted oration inspiring an oppressed and humiliated population is similar.

Fine and good. If you think that's an enlightening comparison, I'm obviously not making much headway in convincing you otherwise.

That is why in the next question I asked you the same question about Farrakhan. Not two of a kind, and not three of a kind.

Really? Because you seem to keep putting them right next to each other, describing them with "Cone, Farrakhan and Wright are examples of XYZ" sentences. It's tough not to draw the implication that you mean they are actually all rather similar, or at least that the differences between them are irrelevant compared to their similarities.

I'm not familiar enough with the rantings of David Koresh, but he would be another similiar person who formed a cult of personality.

Just as with Hitler, I find the language to be far overblown. A cult? Come on. This is a preacher, not a self-idolizing lunatic.

Rhetorically, I'm asking if you condemn bigotry in all its expressions, even the most extreme.

I certainly condemn bigotry, in all its forms, especially the most extreme. But I also consider it a serious accusation that is not to be levelled at people lightly. There are ways of speaking that are not bigoted, but are still racially-charged, still firey, and still blunt about enduring racial problems.

I'm not saying all forms of bigotry are to that extreme, for example, Don Imus's flippant stupid racial comment might have been a momentary slip up.

I think it's more a matter of someone who regularily tests the water having accidentally made a larger splash than usual. But he is not consistently bigoted, and while I think he's a jerk, I can't really hold that too much against him.

You refuse to see between the lines, and instead choose to excuse Wright's blatant bigotry, support his adherence and promotion of Liberation Theology, and embrace his anti-Americanism.

His criticism of America was developed in a time when his world view was shaped by the legacy of Civil Rights, by Apartheid, by Vietnam. I don't mean that these things totally determine his outlook, but Wright is someone who has devoted his career to fighting what he sees as injustice, and his anti-Americanism was developed in that context. I think much of what he says is knee-jerk, and some of it is dowright ridiculous. I've tried to point those things out in fairness. But that's not the same as bigotry.

I'm not really a fan of Liberation Theology. I'm not religious, I don't have a huge axe to grind about race, and I find the emphasis on community over the individual to be a poor fit with my political beliefs. However, I have to at least try and understand what's going on with people whose life was not as comfortable as mine, who have lived under institutional racism, who have had to sit on the back of the bus. (Edit: Rushed first draft left an unfinished sentence here, posted too quickly.)

It was a valid exercise for you to ask me to show examples of his bigotry, which I've provided a few where text is available. It sure would be nice to have access to a library of transcripts, but that is not available. TUCC has also pulled most of their content and curriculum from the net in self defense. I also assume you've viewed the YouTube available content (and I agree many are edited out of context for Micheal Moore effect). The weight of readily available evidence is light, but it paints a picture extreme enough for Obama to condemn.

Obviously, I disagree. I think not only is that which is out there generally unrepresentative, but that the longer clips show a different message than the shorter ones. Yes, he is angry at America. Yes, he is angry at racism. But no, he doesn't cross the line into bigotry.

Does Cone? Yes, although I don't think that's all there is to the man. Does Farrakhan? Absolutely, and all his anti-poverty work does not make up for it. But does Wright? I don't see it. There's reading between the lines, and there's putting words in his mouth, and they're not the same thing.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

MEAT wrote:

How can you guys even see the rest of this thread? I click on page 2 and only see one post. When I click on "Last Post" that post is in reply to my original post. The last 5-10 posts aren't visible in threaded view!

Yep. I have to switch to the 'Lo-Fi' version, then it shows AFAIK, everything in linear view. (Everything, full monty nudge nudge wink wink say no more!)

Now with the technical part out of the way. As an audience member at least, I do think there are still some worthwhile points in this carcass of a thread. I've only read some of the text transcripts of some of the sermons or Mr. Wright. (Since dial up speed isn't much suited for full length video.) From what my limited perusal at least, on the point of AIDS he's at least severely misinformed, if not outright wrong. However, things like Tuskeegee did happen. Overall from the transcript of the sermons I've read at least, I don't really find much evidence that he is urging to go 'kill whitey, any whitey will do.'

It's possible that maybe Mr. Wright is using some sort of coded language that only those in the know can decipher. I have a real hard time believing that to be the case however.

The latest news has this development, (this link is the 'best' out of the bunch I can find at the moment, don't treat it as gospel or anything. Most of the other sources seems to be blogs of questionable motives. With CBS at least I can throw a shoe at Andy Rooney on my TV if they get it wrong. What I'm saying is CBS is a little bit more accountable. Just a bit.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/27/po...ry3973700.shtml

Now that is a bit more troubling to me. Though Wright certainly did not write the articles, the question is who approved it to be in the church bulletin. This is not going to be a PC thing to say, but there is sometimes, an ugly temptation for any movement to derive 'power' by blaming and stepping on another. The more 'extreme' (not the tasty kind of Doritos Cheese Extreme) the doctrine, the higher the chance that temptation will succeed. Regardless of color or geography, this trait to me seems to be a flaw present in human nature.

Having said that, it's a church bulletin. I have to question how many people actually read those things. The last one I've saved was from a friends wedding, and I used it as a makeshift fan during the ceremony. And this church is most likely not the only church that ever printed questionable things on their bulletins. I'm certainly not excusing it by any means. What I am saying is a lot of church bulletins are IMO to be blunt, filled with more nutty pieces than an Almond Joy bar. Sometimes the only truth to be found in there are the coupons at the back.


Back to the thread in general.

I certainly can understand some of Kandrathe's concern, and I'd say some of that concern is certainly valid. Bringing up how socialists like Jester are enslaving and stealing labor and the fruits of that harvest from everyone doesn't really help clarify matters unfortunately.

The original post frankly imo, has enough MEAT (ahahahaha, sorry for the extremely bad pun. *crickets chirp, akward cough, sound of gun being cocked* Yeesh, tough crowd.) for discussion on it's own. The subject of Jesterfication of Jestyranny probably deserves it's own thread, and doesn't add clarity to the points Kandrathe is trying to communicate.

So to the best of my ability, some things I've learned so far are:

- When a thread reaches 100+ replies, I have to switch to the Lo-Fi mode to see everything.

- It's hard if not nearly impossible to find out what is in someone's mind or heart. You can tell by their actions, but that's certainly easier said than done sometimes.

- Neither Kandrathe or Jester are Nazis or Hitler. (At least until further evidence comes in. Any of you twos ever been to an underground bunker facility in the past 5 years? Did any of you twos ever remember emerging from a cloning vat of some sort?)

- Nazi's ruined a lot of things. They stole and corrupted the swastika. The Hitler moustache (formerly known as the Frida Tickler) is pretty much out. Thanks Adolf ya a-hole. Speaking of a-holes, the name 'Adolf' is now pretty much tainted.

[kandrathe]

From what my limited perusal at least, on the point of AIDS he's at least severely misinformed, if not outright wrong. However, things like Tuskeegee did happen. Overall from the transcript of the sermons I've read at least, I don't really find much evidence that he is urging to go 'kill whitey, any whitey will do.' ... Having said that, it's a church bulletin. I have to question how many people actually read those things. The last one I've saved was from a friends wedding, and I used it as a makeshift fan during the ceremony. And this church is most likely not the only church that ever printed questionable things on their bulletins. I'm certainly not excusing it by any means. What I am saying is a lot of church bulletins are IMO to be blunt, filled with more nutty pieces than an Almond Joy bar. Sometimes the only truth to be found in there are the coupons at the back.

I guess, just as the IRS believes, when the topic in the pulpit focuses on politics rather than spirituality you cease to be a preacher and a church, and start to become something else and your bulletins become a form of propaganda. TUCC may lose their 501C3 status as a result of Rev. Wright and his political lessons from the pulpit.

Bringing up how socialists like Jester are enslaving and stealing labor and the fruits of that harvest from everyone doesn't really help clarify matters unfortunately.

I guess I tossed that into the salad to bring a much broader perspective to oppression that transcends race and class. My perspective of freedom, and sentiments of MLK's "Free at Last" are that examples of victory over racial oppression are surrounding us, like Barrack Obama, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and many others. This is a freedom that America offers to its citizens when they can lift themselves from the ghetto. This ghetto now is more of a mind trap where youth do not aspire, rather than are prevented from aspiring to escape it. Socialist policies of caretaking have made poverty comfortable enough to stay in, so that escaping is scarier and harder than just staying poor and ignorant -- yet still collecting a monthly check from the government. Both major parties these days are guilty of vote pandering to these people by offering more handouts. I find the notion of a Government sustained by free loading, by offering more free stuff outrageous. It is a recipe for a spiral descent into economic ruin.

{Tax Rant}We are practicing that recipe here in Minnesota, so I get to see first hand the pain of sustaining a government that is out of control. The democrats over riding the Governor's veto here just passed the largest tax increase in the history of the State. Now every county is voting on raising their sales tax by 1/2 percent to pay for more mass transit. We consume some of the largest per capita funding from the Feds, so let me just thank all you non-Minnesotans for helping sustain our over built road system, 100% social welfare, 100% health coverage for all citizens, and our high standard of living. Before the tax increase we were #6 ranked taxing state in the Union, and now I think we might be right up near the top. In another brilliant move, the democrats are spending the reserve fund which was meant to protect the budget in case of some unforeseen spending problem. No, no no. the democrats would rather use any crisis as a reason to levy an emergency tax to keep the government solvent. All in all, it is ridiculous here and there is likely to be a backlash soon. The citizens are being robbed blind in plain sight, and the misery index is rising fast for every class. All these extra taxes, gas tax, sales tax are regressive and hurt all citizens equally. {/end rant}

Ok, back to the bigger social problem. Did you know that the latest Energy Bill mandates the type of light bulb citizens must use by 2012? I don't have the right to use an incandescent light bulb anymore? I am enslaved by this, and 1000 or more other "laws" that rob me of my freedoms. More than 1/2 my gross income finds its way into the governments coffers, so I consider myself at least half enslaved.

[kandrathe]

Obviously, I disagree. I think not only is that which is out there generally unrepresentative, but that the longer clips show a different message than the shorter ones. Yes, he is angry at America. Yes, he is angry at racism. But no, he doesn't cross the line into bigotry. Does Cone? Yes, although I don't think that's all there is to the man. Does Farrakhan? Absolutely, and all his anti-poverty work does not make up for it. But does Wright? I don't see it. There's reading between the lines, and there's putting words in his mouth, and they're not the same thing.

I would agree that Wright is not as outrageous as Cone, and that Cone is less outrageous than Farrakhan. As for "cult" versus "Cult of Personality", I used the later intentionally. Rev. Wright is heretical to UCC doctrines, but I'm not sure where misdirected ends and cult begins. David Koresh is a horrible comparison to Wright in all ways, but in that a religious leader however weird and twisted can hold great sway over a group of people who are willing to believe the man over the standard accepted doctrine of their parent organization. Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely. Another better example might be Jim Jones, who in SF was also originally a great social activist and beloved in the community who also over time strayed markedly from his original theology. Now, just to be clear, I was not "comparing them" in the sense of equal which we've discussed above, just that there is some congruence in this "cult of personality" surrounding someone who leads a church, and also in straying from the accepted theology of the parent organization.

[Jester]

Ok, back to the bigger social problem. Did you know that the latest Energy Bill mandates the type of light bulb citizens must use by 2012? I don't have the right to use an incandescent light bulb anymore? I am enslaved by this, and 1000 or more other "laws" that rob me of my freedoms. More than 1/2 my gross income finds its way into the governments coffers, so I consider myself at least half enslaved.

Shouldn't this stuff be a new thread? I can't honestly see how lightbulbs and your taxes have much to do with Barack Obama's pastor, except in a pretty cosmic sense. I'm sure we could cram Tibet in here too, but maybe there should be a new thread for that as well.

It is also very difficult to view this thread now, since Outline view no longer functions correctly.

-Jester

[Jester]

I would agree that Wright is not as outrageous as Cone, and that Cone is less outrageous than Farrakhan. As for "cult" versus "Cult of Personality", I used the later intentionally. Rev. Wright is heretical to UCC doctrines, but I'm not sure where misdirected ends and cult begins. David Koresh is a horrible comparison to Wright in all ways, but in that a religious leader however weird and twisted can hold great sway over a group of people who are willing to believe the man over the standard accepted doctrine of their parent organization. Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely. Another better example might be Jim Jones, who in SF was also originally a great social activist and beloved in the community who also over time strayed markedly from his original theology. Now, just to be clear, I was not "comparing them" in the sense of equal which we've discussed above, just that there is some congruence in this "cult of personality" surrounding someone who leads a church, and also in straying from the accepted theology of the parent organization.

A Cult of Personality is about the exhaltation and worship of a false idol. (Now, I don't believe in true idols, but running with it for the moment...) In the cult of David Koresh, people worshipped David Koresh. In the cult of Jim Jones, people worshipped Jim Jones.

Is it just a very weird coincidence that both these nutcases ended up killing every one of their followers in a spectacular mass suicide? Or is that just another one of those "comparing-but-not-equal" things? Because if you continually talk about someone in the context of mass murderers, people really start to wonder why, especially when there is an entire history of the world filled with charismatic religious leaders who didn't, y'know, drink the kool-aid.

Rev. Wright clearly does not run a cult of personality. He mentions the Christian God as the obvious target of worship dozens of times a sermon. He is a religious leader, not a false idol. He is no more the object of worship than any charismatic preacher, and while I am distrustful of the mindset of anyone who would take on religious leadership, Wright appears to be blameless on this front. And, of course, he recently retired, which is a very strange thing for a Jim Jones or a David Koresh to go do. Whether the church has been "misdirected" or turned into a "cult", its leader has taken his leave.

Your defense of religious orthodoxy is disturbing in light of our earlier discussion of Jefferson. Every man must make up his own mind about religion, and that this is a sign of clear thinking and strong character, but "Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely"? We should stick to old, safe religion now, lest we lose our way, become lost lambs in the woods?

And, on the topic of losing one's way, isn't it up to the UCC to determine who is and isn't "heretical to their doctrines"? Seems a little funny that the President of the UCC in this video here would call (crazy, racist, bigoted heretic) Rev. Wright "remarkable", "a bridge-builder", and a "prophet" in a downright fawning speech commemorating his retirement? ( http://www.tucc.org/home.htm ) Or are you now reserving for yourself the right to vet religions for heresy?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Mind explaining in greater detail why you feel that this item is inherently negative? You seem to have a tendency to brand Liberation Theology as something evil when i can only assume you mean to refer to Extremist Liberation Theology, or more specifically Extremist Black Liberation Theology. Conflating the two, however, is just as inaccurate as claiming that all Muslims are terrorists (as long as we are making comparisons.)

When I talk about Liberation theology, I'm meaning as it is practiced in South and Central America where there are strong ties to dialectical materialism, and the communist revolution. If you want to say that is "radical", then I guess that is what I'm meaning as opposed to the theoretical and philosophical non-radical brand that is practiced nowhere. Also, I wouldn't use the word "Evil", just the word "Wrong". I do find some merit in the view that Christ was at least aware of his role in active resistance to Rome if not an outright revolutionary, and as evidenced by Peter slicing off the ear of the High Priest's servant Malchus coming to arrest Christ was not enforcing strict pacifism amongst his disciples. Pope John Paul II said, ""this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church's catechisms." But, my readings of Josephus, the Bible, and other historical texts don't entirely jibe with the Catholic Church viewpoint either, which is why I'm not a Catholic.

Are we to accept oppression then because to stand up and oppose it could incite some to violence?

No. In fact, if what Wright(as described by Jester) claims is true, then had I been a member of his congregation I would be clamoring for some kind of active resistance to this government oppression. I would probably find Wright and his pacifist solutions too demure and go right for the real revolutionaries in the Nation of Islam, except of course that I'm not Islamic. I am actually a staunch supporter of the original American Revolution against King George, and all that represents in its current expression in this modern society. I believe we've come dangerously close to electing a new king, and have frittered away our freedoms and hard fought liberties. If it comes to it, I would fight and die for this original American idea of freedom and liberty. But, I wouldn't probably go off like Barrack's friend Bill Ayers did.

If you truly want to see if Wright's views and statements have an impact on violent behaviors (and you actually believe that the tools of such violence would be "the gloc and the drive by") than it wouldn't be that hard to make a correlation. Just look up the crime statistics in the Chicago area and see if there is a statistically higher number of white victims of drive-bys and the like. These types of crimes are generally confined to Black on Black offenses rather than Black on White. If you can find a higher number of Black on White drive-bys than you could assume that there is something about Chicago that is inciting or supporting those types of crimes where in other cities you don't find that relation.

Yes, I would do the research, but I'm pretty busy at work currently so I don't have the hours it would take to validate or invalidate my concern. As I said, I'm concerned, not certain. In fact, as time goes by with this being a non-story, my confidence in Jester's view of Wright as merely a misguided anachronism of the sixties is increasing. Interesting take on it all on the LA Times Blog "If Obama’s claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright’s trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted 'white' America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright’s reputation for spewing hate is well known."

But, I'm still against his form of bigotry. Our problems with government are classless, and affect all colors. WE the people need to take the government back and quit being such a lazy, apathetic bunch of ignorant sheep.

[kandrathe]

A Cult of Personality is about the exhaltation and worship of a false idol. ... Rev. Wright clearly does not run a cult of personality.

False idol? You mean like American Idol? :-) Seriously, Ok, I think we are misfiring on "cult" again. I mean "cult of personality" in the sense, "a created heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise" as evidenced by the President of the UCC defending Wright despite his obvious deviations from UCC theology. Ok, so lemme think about non-koolaid drinking ones. Bob Jones?

Your defense of religious orthodoxy is disturbing in light of our earlier discussion of Jefferson. Every man must make up his own mind about religion, and that this is a sign of clear thinking and strong character, but "Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely"? We should stick to old, safe religion now, lest we lose our way, become lost lambs in the woods?

I see your point. I guess my concern is in the difference between informed rational thought, and blind following of the either the dogma of the church or the holy man and what he says. For those who are uncertain I would think that once you set out on your own, you run the risk of losing your way. There were any number of Branch Davidians and Jonestown members who saw themselves in the quagmire and wanted to leave (and some did). So I would say for those who tend to be followers it would be better to stay on the orthodox path than to fall into the quagmire of madness.

Or are you now reserving for yourself the right to vet religions for heresy?

Yup, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Vandiablo]

A revamp after editorial review:

I think it's interesting how some people are trying to find the proper mud to fling at Obama. Here at our relatively non-partisan lounge, he has been labeled a "crook", his "spine" has been questioned, now we have a post that he's P.T. Barnum "on his white side". What labels are going to stick, and be used all summer long?? What kind of cartoon will he become? We'll see.

But it's funny: the more Ashock denigrates Obama, the more I like Obama. Obama's response to everything has been marvelous. McCain is good about that too, usually. (Hillary's responses are usually horrible; see Carville.) Can you imagine having a president that can actually speak logically? It's been SOOO long...

-V

[Vandiablo]

ps: I still Love you -V [as a friend]:wub:

Well, it's nice that somebody does, and I am honored that it is you. When I'm done with school (6 weeks to go!) I'll ask you what games you're playing.

-V

[Jester]

Seriously, Ok, I think we are misfiring on "cult" again. I mean "cult of personality" in the sense, "a created heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise" as evidenced by the President of the UCC defending Wright despite his obvious deviations from UCC theology. Ok, so lemme think about non-koolaid drinking ones. Bob Jones?

No, I'm pretty sure we're on the same wavelength about what "cult of personality" means. Jim Jones? David Koresh? I think you've been pretty clear.

The UCC is a tolerant and open church. They don't run an inqusition to purge "deviations", and I think it is just madness to be talking about the president of the UCC congratulating Wright on his retirement as the "unquestioning flattery and praise" of a David Koresh-style personality cult. It's just warped, I don't know what else to say. Do you know this guy? Because you're basically saying his free will has been sapped by his fanatical devotion to Rev. Wright. It's like we've now post-Godwinned the thread, and are searching for even more extreme analogies.

Agree or disagree, this guy is not running a cult of personality.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No, I'm pretty sure we're on the same wavelength about what "cult of personality" means. Jim Jones? David Koresh? I think you've been pretty clear.

The UCC is a tolerant and open church. They don't run an inqusition to purge "deviations", and I think it is just madness to be talking about the president of the UCC congratulating Wright on his retirement as the "unquestioning flattery and praise" of a David Koresh-style personality cult. It's just warped, I don't know what else to say. Do you know this guy? Because you're basically saying his free will has been sapped by his fanatical devotion to Rev. Wright. It's like we've now post-Godwinned the thread, and are searching for even more extreme analogies.

Agree or disagree, this guy is not running a cult of personality.

-Jester

Jestrification again. Ptoie! Let me just spit the crap you've put into my mouth out. 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.

Here's a little snippet from a biographer; "As Wright's reputation grew as a powerful and dynamic preacher in the black sermonic tradition who incorporated music, politics, and social issues into his sermons, he became a sought-after lecturer and preacher. In 1993 he was named second on Ebony's list of the top black preachers in North America. Once admitting that he had considered a career as a seminary professor, Wright satisfied his desire to teach by accepting invitations to lecture and teach at numerous universities and seminaries. ... In recognition of his contributions, Wright has been awarded seven honorary doctoral degrees. He has also served on a number of boards and commissions, including serving on the board of trustees for Virginia Union University and Chicago Theological Seminary. He continues to be a highly sought after preacher, teacher, and lecturer." You don't consider that fawning? People line up to be seen by the guy. The president of the UCC called him a Prophet! Egads! 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.

[Occhidiangela]

Nobody. Have you been reading the rest of this thread? Kandrathe brought Hitler into it. That is what I am referring to, and if you've not been following along, I can see how that would have been confusing.

-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.

Occhi