I have to say that your words seem to reek of misinformation and lack of context. Have you listened to the full sermons? Have you watched his PBS interview with Bill Moyers? Have you thought that maybe his believeing AIDS to be created by the government is justified when black people are still being treated as less than human even today?
You don't have to agree with what he's said to offer a balanced portrayal of the man instead of writing him off as a kook. However, your words serve to show that in matters of discussing racism, white people's denial is the deciding factor in what is actually discussed.
So, thank you for misrepresenting Dr. Wright.
Dave, I'm with you on abortion, and I understand your point when you find it ironic that he misses 50 million dead fetuses but is outraged at other deaths.
But I would say to you, don't ignore the other deaths for abortion's sake.
You don't have to be a left winger to think that government tends to screw up everything it gets involved in. You don't have to be a left winger to think we should mind our own business and not police the world. And you don't have to be an America hater to disagree with American foreign policy. You know why OBL attacked us? He's told us in his "Letter to America." He said it is because we starved a million children in Iraq due to sanctions that have been imposed since 1990. Saddam's fault you say? Well who gave Saddam to the Iraqi people? Saddam was a CIA operative. See here:
http://www.upi.com/International..._cia_plot/6557/
He and the Baath party had big support from the U.S.
Another reason given by OBL is that we prop up dictators that kill all kinds of people. Well, that's accurate. See here for instance:
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com...ory-
lesson.html
All Wright is saying is the same thing the CIA says, the 9/11 Commission Report says, and what such men as Paul Wolfowitz say. They call it "blowback." Unintended consequences of violent U.S. intervention in foreign countries. Wright calls it "chickens coming home to roost." Same thing, just more colorfully stated. And accurate.
If people continue to believe this fantasy that they hate us because of our freedom and prosperity, and yet continue to ignore the actual reasons that they state (we impose dictators that kill them, we starve their children, we impose trade deals at the point of a gun rather than through a free market, we desecrate their holy sites, etc) we are never going to solve these problems and we will have endless war.
Jon:
You left out the other reasons OBL attacked the USA: the link is the full text of the letter you refer to.
Basically, he not only objected to the Iraqi sanctions, and propping up Arab Dictators and tyrants; but he emphasized the Palestinian issue first; and yes, contrary to your emphasis; he does call for repentance and conversion to Islam and he calls for a turning away from sexual immorality, fornication, adulteries, homosexuality, usury, (commerical trade and interest and advertising): alcohol and drugs, and expoitation. He calls for repentance from the western value of separation of church and state.
So, part of the reasons for Islamic Jihad, whether it is Al Qaideh or any other kind of Islamic Jihadist movement (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jama’ate Islami, Al Ansar, etc.) it is much more the Iraq/Saddam Hussein/sanctions issue.
It includes the Palestinian/Israel issue at the top, and also includes all of the things that we call freedom to choose (economics, sex, advertising, adulteries, alcohol) and getting rid of separation of church and state and establishing Sharia Islamic law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/.../24/
theobserver
Why did we attack you?
. . .
1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
Real Islam has to include all of these issues in order for westerners to understand this.
jTo call it "attacking freedom and democracy" was a short, modern, sound -bit version without quoting the whole letter.
What does OBL call for?
Convert to Islam
These are sections from OBL's letter to America:
1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. . . .
2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
. . .
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
. . . .
Osama Ben Laden
Ben Laden's letter to America continued -- he says at the end, "If you fail to meet ALL of these conditions . . . Take note of that!
___________________
vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.
(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.
. . .
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-14
OBL
So, Jeremiah Wright was indeed bombastic and seems to have a lot of anger and bitterness and is seeking to throw the sins of slavery and racisim and the American Indians and Tusgeegee sin in the public's face while mixing those things with other outrageous and untrue claims;
and he exaggerated and on the issue of 9-11; he was very simplistic and wrong.
I wrote:
"Real Islam has to include all of these issues in order for westerners to understand this."
I should have written, "Our definition of Islam and what it includes, has to define it according to what they (the Muslims, their traditions, the Haddith, the Quran, the Olama, and the doctrines of Jihad and Dar Al Islam vs. Dar Al Harb) historically have always understood; and [NOT the modern watered down PBS/Karen Armstrong/John Espisito spin on Islam]
has to include all of these issues in order for westerners to understand what real Islam is.
Jeremiah Wright seemed to be hiding behind "the Prophetic tradition of the Black Church" -- which he seems to say that they have the right to say anything they want as long as it is in the context of pain and being a victim of past atrocities.
Cain basically said, "God, that's not fair!"
Ishmael basically said, "God, that's not fair"
Esau basically said, "God, that's not fair"
Saul basically said, "God, that's not fair"
Each one of them was responsible to respond rightly to the trials and hardships they got.
It is time to stop blaming the sins of the past on people today.
Most white's (especially Christians) that I know are ashamed of those evils of the past and have confessed them as sins.
Combox for:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Dead Wrong For All the Wright Reasons (the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition, AIDS, and Abortion)
[29 April 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-wrong-
for.html
Jeremiah Wright seemed to be hiding behind "the Prophetic tradition of the Black Church" -- which he seems to say that they have the right to say anything they want as long as it is in the context of pain and being a victim of past atrocities.
Bu thow can you say he is wrong? He thinks it is all biblical. So does he not have a duty to preach it? Sure it comes from a lived experience of black America. But why is that more valid than the tradition of white America? With no authority there is nothing to say. You can say you prefer Bill Hybels to Jeremiah Wright but you can't say one is right and the other wrong. They just have different ways of reading scripture.
Sola Scriptora does tend to lead to different schools of though simply setting up different churches and preaching their brand of christianity unchallenged. God's will is there should be one body. We can learn from black and white christians if they all come together in one church. That is God's will but it does not happen in the protestant world. It is not that easy to do in the catholic church either but at least you have a chance. Guys like Wright can be dealt with. There is a bishop who has the power to integrate groups. Sometimes he doesn't do it but at least he can do a lot if he so choses.
"So, thank you for misrepresenting Dr. Wright."
Support please. Good gravvy what is wrong with people?
Hi Amaryah,
I have to say that your words seem to reek of misinformation and lack of context. Have you listened to the full sermons?
Send me some and I'll be happy to; or direct me to some texts online. I have, however, listened to many hours of television coverage, including comments by friends of his.
Have you watched his PBS interview with Bill Moyers?
Yes.
Have you thought that maybe his believeing AIDS to be created by the government is justified when black people are still being treated as less than human even today?
I understand that he is basing it on the Tuskegee experiments. I understand that it is within a context of horrendous treatment of black people, historically. But we can't believe such a thing with no evidence. I happen to think that one ought to have some proof before they make such a serious charge.
Racism still exists, but things are far better than they were 50, 60, 70 years ago. If not, then Obama wouldn't be anywhere near the candidacy for President.
Black people are being slaughtered in the womb everyday because the black community has bought the liberal white nonsense about "sexual freedom" (14 million killed so far). Black children are in slavery in the Sudan. There is plenty of racism going on around the world.
You don't have to agree with what he's said to offer a balanced portrayal of the man instead of writing him off as a kook.
I'm not the only one. Barack Obama has now called his positions "ludicrous" and "ridiculous."
However, your words serve to show that in matters of discussing racism, white people's denial is the deciding factor in what is actually discussed.
What have I denied? I don't deny racism at all. What I deny is crazy conspiratorial scenarios that blow up things to be far worse than they actually are, and keep black people in a "victim" mentality that does them no good, and no one else any good.
So, thank you for misrepresenting Dr. Wright.
Thank you for exercising your prerogative of free speech here, and disagreeing with the blogmaster. I hope you hang around.
Hi Jon,
And you don't have to be an America hater to disagree with American foreign policy. You know why OBL attacked us? He's told us in his "Letter to America." He said it is because we starved a million children in Iraq due to sanctions that have been imposed since 1990.
I have a paper on my site where I state the same thing. It was written on 21 September 2001:
"Our policies on the embargo of Iraq (which has caused the deaths of an estimated one million civilians) and pertaining to the Palestinians in refugee camps, were the cause of some considerable resentment among Arab nations. The pope and the US bishops have made this same point. And I heard the widow of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (who was killed by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists) on the radio backing it up, too, saying that this has caused significant anti-American sentiment among Arabs. She is neither anti-American nor anti-Israeli. In fact, she recounted how Israeli prime minister Rabin had written her many letters, saying how her husband was his role model as a man of peace.
"Furthermore, she noted that the sheik who is in jail for planning the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 was the same man who ordered her husband to be killed. Yet he was allowed into the US, and was issued a "green card." Would that not suggest some complacency and senseless irresponsibility of the US in this regard? But that is also quite unpopular to state, because (as a Rabbi I cited above noted), victims are always regarded as inherently righteous.
"Just because one may make a case that America may have precipitated some of the atmosphere in which terrorism has flourished, by some unjust and unwise policies, does not mean that the one saying that is trying to justify the terrorists, or claim deliberate malicious intent of American policy. All it means is that - in any realistic social/cultural view - there are precipitating causes and remote causes that can lead to ill societal results and effects. . . .
"Likewise, because we fought Iraq and Saddam Hussein, apparently we can't comprehend any unjust policy on our part towards the people of that country, who have been treated far more dreadfully by their own leader than he ever treated us. He is the embodiment of evil, so we don't care that a million of his people (many of them children) starve to death or die because of inadequate medical care. Nor do we seem to realize how that would make us look in the eyes of Arabs otherwise inclined to support our efforts in the war against extremism and terrorism among their ranks. So we help to create our own problems, to some extent.
"One can look at facts from simply a Catholic perspective, without the right-left cliches and supposed ironclad positions entering in. This is one of the many marvelous attributes of the Catholic Church that I so admire and thank God for. It simply follows the paths of truth and justice, with no regard whatever for the opinions of polls and editorial pages."
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...l-
passages.html
At the time, I stated that 9-11 could quite possibly be the beginning of judgment on America for all our sins. I still believe that, but I don't dogmatically state it as an indisputable fact. It's merely a speculation. I think it is a quite possible scenario, given what we know about judgment in the Bible (see the above paper).
Bin Laden was correct in many of his criticisms of America (that we saw above). That is the sad thing. We DO live in a sewer and cesspool in this society (and most of it is sexual sin). And that is the reason that I think America is the wickedest nation ever. We know much better than to condone what we do.
Randy,
Good point; and that is the bottom line (along with mystery and history, etc.) of why the current movement of former Evangelicals have left Protestantism for RC; like yourself, Scott Hahn, my friend Rod Bennett said the exact same thing as you did without the context of J.Wright.
The problem is we don't know if the RC is right either on its denial of Scripture alone, the only means of justification, infallibility, Mary, purgatory, transubstantiation, indulgences, etc.
It is trading truth for unity.
Gaining "unity and ecclesiastical authority" gives Biblical evangelicals no comfort at all; because you have sacrificed doctrine in the area of Scripture as the final and only infallible authority; faith as the only means of justification; and added Mary and infallibility and indulgences and penance and transubstantiation to the apostolic deposit.
Ken, I do have to grant your point that OBL did say that he will continue to fight with us if we don't convert to Islam, etc. But consider that OBL is not fighting with any country that hasn't attacked him or meddled in Middle Eastern affairs. The Swiss are not Muslims, but OBL doesn't bother them, nor does he attack Iceland, Norway, etc. So is it really about not being Muslim. Seriously, what do you think motivates a person more; a million starved kids or belonging to the wrong religion? Having your kids starve to death would make anyone crazy.
The Palestinian issue is another big one, and that should not be a surprise. Border disputes have gone on since the dawn of time. When an outsider comes in and takes a side it creates resentment. Never mind the fact that we give 3 times as much aid to Israel's enemies as we do to Israel itself. Never mind the fact that we treat Israel like a second class citizen, making them ask our permission to negotiate peace deals, etc. The fact is people prefer to solve their own problems. Instead we go in there, distribute billions of dollars to both sides, both sides end up ticked off at us, and we end up being resented for it. It's a stupid policy, one that incidentally will drive us even further into bankruptcy, and for what? Simply to make more enemies and have more 9/11's. We should expect foreigners to resent us for meddling in their affairs just as we would resent us if they meddled in ours.
My point is simply this. Wright is 100% correct. Our foreign policy lead DIRECTLY to 9/11. That's what they say. It's what they say every day. We should start listening. And besides, we can't afford to continue spending this kind of money overseas ($1 trillion to fund our overseas military operations every single year). It's going to end one way or another, and I say the sooner the better.
The Swiss are not Muslims, but OBL doesn't bother them, nor does he attack Iceland, Norway, etc.
Obviously, they choose to fight the most urgent and "biggy" in their own minds first of course. (after they could not do this in their own countries (Zawayhiri in Egypt, etc. He was behind killing Anwar Sedat. They could not take out Hossni Mobarak after trying for years, so they joined forces with other Jihadists from lots of different countries and found a base in Afghanistan.
If American and Israel fall, then they will go on to retake Spain (Ben Laden and the writings of Saeed Qutb and Hassan Banna say this also.)
and establish the original Caliphate (632-732 AD) and then move on from there on both sides of the world. Ben Laden and his ilk were emboldened by
a. Retreat from Lebanon in 83-84 ?
b. Retreat from Somolia
c. Defeat of the Russians by the Taliban
Then,
his own country, Saudi Arabia and Sudan rejected him; so he went back to Afghanistan to establish his "base" (Al Qaidah)
Obviously, they have to take one step at at time in their own minds. Norway and Switzerland are not important; nor Holland; but the Dutch movie maker Van Googh (sp?) was bruttally killed by the same kind of Muslim mentality.
The best analysis of Obama that I've seen was from Shelby Steele. He described Obama as a "bargainer": a black person who makes white people feel good and not threatened (the mirror opposite of Wright).
I read another analysis (I think, by Dick Morris) that stated that Obama was at this church because of the necessities of both Chicago Democratic politics and because of his need for acceptance in the black community (being half-white). To me that is entirely plausible. It would explain somewhat why he now claims to disagree with the more radical utterances of Rev. Wright). Possibly he always did, but he was there (at least partially) for political purposes, not religious ones. I can't read the man's soul, but this is how aspiring politicians act.
Now that Wright is clearly a detriment to his campaign, he is dissing him, because any "plusses" of association are far outweighed by the negatives. He can't say the reasl reason why he was at that church for 20 years and so he tried to play it down the middle in the "race speech" and now is distancing himself.
His problem is the implausibility of these safe, political maneuverings. It smacks of Bill Clinton and his ubiquitous opinion polls every day to see what he should believe. He can't say why he was really at that church for so long, so that puts him in a very difficult position.
I actually like Obama. He seems truly different from the usual Democratic (or Republican) politician (there are very few Democrats whom I personally like; I can't even think of one besides Obama). I want to trust him. He doesn't strike me as a phony. I hope he doesn't turn out to be a compulsive liar like President Clinton.
Not that I'll ever vote for him. I won't. I just think he has a cool personality and has some class that is rare in politics. But he is a politician, and is forced to do certain things, whether he wants to or not. The Wright issue is very tricky for him to navigate. His greatest ally will be the media, who are in his corner. They'll diss Wright too, more forcefully than they have been, before now. The fact that there is now this tiff between the two guarantees that the media will side with Obama, for obvious reasons.
The bigger problem is what this whole mess has done to his credibility and how white Americans will figure the relationship into the total equation of who to vote for. White folks have always feared the "angry black man" because we know full well what has been done to black people in this country in the past. It goes back to Malcolm X, etc.
I think Obama is vastly different than Wright in many ways. Whether he has always been is another question. I suspect that he has grown and matured (I mean in a general "social" sense; not politically per se). But whether the average Democratic voter or independent or swing voter thinks the same remains to be seen.
Jon,
Ron Paul wants to stop all foreign aid to all countries -- maybe that is the solution? Seems impractical with the global economy and markets are inter-twined with each other these days; internet, easy of travel. The ball of yarn has been tangling up for 70 -100 +/- years.
Yes, the Muslims perceive those things (along with other reasons, which I listed) and those are their reasons. That does not make them correct or justified and it does not justify Wright's bombastic and dangerous way of communicating things.
Biggest problems with Wright is admiring Louis Farakan, thinking US government caused AIDS; and calling what the US does "terrorism" when it is an attempt at a "just war"; which I know is very imperfect and mixed with lots of bad factors and bad actors (Abu Gharib was definitely a grave sin and shame that those US soldiers and prison guards did.) They ruined in the minds of Muslims any kind of "moral integrity" from out side.
On judgment day, the Living God will not accept the excuse of Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq saying, "Mr. Bush made us kill each other; so it is his fault". God will hold every person responsible for his own sinful responses to wrongs.
It is trading truth for unity
I agree this feels wrong. Protestants have always valued truth and have been willing to split the church over it again and again. There are two answers. One is that we don't actually know the truth 100%. We could be wrong about some things. So we are trading something that we think is the truth for unity. I know I was pretty sure I was closer to the truth than the Catholics were. It was very humbling to contemplate the possibility that I was not.
The other answer is that truth is not our problem. It is God's job to protect His church from error. Unity is our problem. We are commanded to live as one Eph (4:3), to avoid factions (Gal 5:20), and to obey our leaders and submit to their authority (Heb 13:17). So we just obey God and personally unite ourselves with the body of Christ. Then we need to trust the promised of Jesus that He will not let the gates of hell prevail against His church.
Gaining "unity and ecclesiastical authority" gives Biblical evangelicals no comfort at all; because you have sacrificed doctrine in the area of Scripture as the final and only infallible authority; faith as the only means of justification; and added Mary and infallibility and indulgences and penance and transubstantiation to the apostolic deposit.
Since when is comfort the goal? People talk about choosing a church where they feel comfortable. It is probably the worst criteria to use. All you need to do is trust that God will eventually lead His church to the truth in important matters. Jesus told the apostles, "when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." What more do you need?
Sure the implications of trusting God are huge but what is the other choice? To suppose God has left the truth as one doctrine among many claiming the same, weak Sola Scriptura foundation and lacking anything like the historical pedigree you would expect? You sacrifice unity to find truth and you get neither.
Since when is comfort the goal?
That is a bad choice of words on my part; OK; I don't mean "comfort" as in "comfortable", I mean a clean and clear conscience in light of violating issues of truth and doctrine.
Yes, the Bible says to live in unity, and submit to church leaders, etc.; but it also says to "contend earnestly for the truth". The Roman Catholic church has too many false doctrines to ever want to go there.
That is a bad choice of words on my part; OK; I don't mean "comfort" as in "comfortable", I mean a clean and clear conscience in light of violating issues of truth and doctrine.
I understand that. But is there really a difference? Is it a matter of truth and doctrine when we don't have an infallible way of determining truth? Or is it a matter of what doctrines I am comfortable with? Remember some doctrinal issues are declared to be not serious and other declared to be showstoppers. Your standard of "a clean and clear conscience" seems like it could easily boil down to comfort wrapped in pious language that can't stand up to scrutiny.
Ken, is it just that they want the "biggy?" You don't think maybe, just maybe, killing millions of their people without provocation maybe had a little more to do with it? It's odd that the reasons you want to focus on are always reasons that absolve the U.S. of any responsibility for some of our immoral foreign policy decisions.
Remember that the reasons I cite are the reasons given in direct response to the question "Why did we attack you." The second question is "What do we want you to do." This indicates that the primary motivation for the attacks is what I suggest. Maybe he will continue to fight us until we convert to Islam at this point, and we have to fight back. I don't dispute that. But it stands to reason that the millions of people we've killed needlessly and the elected leaders we've deposed in order to install our murderous stooges is the primary motivation. Looks like chickens coming home to roost to me.
You say that in this internet and global age the U.S. has an obligation to borrow money from China in order to provide money for other countries. Not sure I get that one.
Hey Dave,
Here's a couple of links to some fuller sermons:
After 9/11:http://youtube.com/watch?v=ycWgFCEnprs
Here's a fuller context of the "God Damn America" sermon: http://youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
You Wrote: I understand that he is basing it on the Tuskegee experiments. I understand that it is within a context of horrendous treatment of black people, historically. But we can't believe such a thing with no evidence. I happen to think that one ought to have some proof before they make such a serious charge.
Well, when things like this are still happening:http://www.organicconsumers.org/
articles/article_11525.cfm
Its not completely outside of the realm of possibility to believe the government capable of such a thing. While I don't agree with the Rev. Wright's assertion, I don't think he should be labeled a kook, especially when more white people in America believe Elvis is alive than believe that racism is still a serious problem: http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/a.../
seenoevil.html
You Wrote: Racism still exists, but things are far better than they were 50, 60, 70 years ago. If not, then Obama wouldn't be anywhere near the candidacy for President.
I believe Rev. Wright said things are better now in his PBS interview. Also, the excelling of one African America does not prove that things are "far better now." Madame CJ Walker was the first female millionare in America and this happened in the early 1900's. If we followed your logic, her success should prove that racial problems we're "far better" than slavery, and possibly a little bit, but always when talking about race it has been easier for whites to look back and see the magnitude of the problem later than when they're currently entrenched in it. However, blacks and other people of color who continue to fight against racism are labelled as kooks and troublemakes, stirring up divisions.
Furthermore, if you think black people are having children out of wedlock because they've bought into "sexual freedom," I think that's highly simplistic and seems to ignore how the creation of ghettos, and by consequence their extreme poverty which feeds a lot into out of wedlock births (because the same thing happens in extremely poor white areas as well), came to be a major part of the problem.
Also, Barack Obama's calling Rev. Wright "ludicrous," is coming from a black man trying to run for president. His having to distance himself from comments that discomfort the majority of white America doesn't prove that he's "ludicrous," simply that white America and black America are on two different wavelengths and Barack has to cater to the majority.
You wrote: What have I denied? I don't deny racism at all. What I deny is crazy conspiratorial scenarios that blow up things to be far worse than they actually are, and keep black people in a "victim" mentality that does them no good, and no one else any good.
Assert
The problem that comes to my mind is that we are still under the thumb of the thinking of two Dead White European Males--Marx and Freud. Freud in assertion that the subconcious rules the roost and reason is just a phony mask. Marx in that us normals are running around under a "false consiciousness". So you insert the various "isms": sexism, racism, etc. and you have these abstract entities in which anyone can indulge regardless of those niggling things we used to call before the multicultural fad hit, "facts." Deny you are sexist? That's just classic Freudian denial covering latent sexual frustration and misogyny. You are not a racist, you say? That's just Marxist false consciousness that proves you are an ignorant tool of The Man. We all know the various stereotypes your mind indulges in when you encounter other races.
The way out of this hell? I would suggest returning to the Church teachings on concupiscience, the objective rightness and wrongness of an act per se and just judgment in assessing one's personal culpability. Instead of indulging in conspiratorial metanarratives and making all the naughty thoughts that bubble in the mind the decisive factor, accept them as an unfortunate consequence of the Fall, but understand they are only temptations and are not sinful in themselves and certainly not the defining feature of Man.
Jon wrote:
Remember that the reasons I cite are the reasons given in direct response to the question "Why did we attack you." The second question is "What do we want you to do." This indicates that the primary motivation for the attacks is what I suggest. Maybe he will continue to fight us until we convert to Islam at this point, and we have to fight back. I don't dispute that. . . . "
yes, but you are
a. downplaying /and/or ignoring the Palestinian/Israel issue
b. That the reasons for the sanctions for 13 years on Saddam and Iraq was becasue he was so deceptive and tricky and lying and playing "cat and mouse" with the UN inspectors and stealing and living high with his Cuban cigars and playboy magazines and loads of cash stuffed into the walls of his palaces (with his two sons, Udai and Kusai (sp?)
c. Islam, by nature is externally motivated -- it does not deal with internal sin and never confesses its own sin; always blaming others. It is an external system of force to keep the masses under control -- cover up the women to keep men from lusting, washing before you pray, going to Mecca, giving alms, obeying authorities without questions.
Secular Islamic rulers are cut from the same nature as the Islamic dictators/systems.
d. Allah is described 3 times in the Quran as "the very best deciever" ( 3:54, and two others, cant get them on the combox limitation right now.
We become like what we worship. Psalm 115:1-8; 2 Cor. 3:16-18
muslim world always has dictators and tyrants because Allah himself, doctrinally in Islam, is a tyrant and a dictator -- Al Jabbar" means, "Tyrant, Dictator, proud, forceful one, enforcer, irresistable one. From "Jabr" - "force", destiny, fatalism; Al-Jabr (Algebra comes from this) -- an impersonal deity that is like a math formula that you must plug in the missing number in order to get the right results. Good works, behave, and don't rebel = blessings. Rebel = curses from Allah.
e. Islam also has "Taquiye" -- disimmulation - passive lying, especially to the enemy.
all this togther and ministry to Muslims for 25 + years helps me understand that the sanctions in Iraq was not the main motive or only motive; although it was one of the ones stated for us --
f. Islam also teaches that when you are down, you lay low and wait for an opportunity when you have power to attack. The victories in Afghanistan against the Russians and oil wealth and weapons, etc. (black market, Saudi and others being able to invest in markets and thrive in Europe and the west and also use Islamic Sharia law economic separate banking systems many times) all of these things gave opportunity for OBL and the members of Al Qaida (from all kinds of differetn Muslim countries who had been trained and came to Afghanistan to fight against the atheist Russians) power to pull off what they did -- along with the west's lack of understanding Islam and naivite, etc
Ken,
a-Why do you say I ignore the Palestinian issue. I directly addressed it. See my post above, which has a paragraph that starts: "The Palestinian issue is another big one,".
b-Sure, Saddam was partly to blame for the sanctions regime. But we are responsible for Saddam. We put him there and supported him in his efforts to retain power. Does it make sense to starve a million innocent kids due to our mistake when doing so will do nothing more than further strengthen Saddam's grip on power? Many members of the U.N. resigned due to this outrage, which they called genocide. Starve a million kids and guess what, people will get mad. To act like pointing this out is anti-American, as Wright did, is absurd and foolish.
c-Criticize Islam all you want. But to act like this is the main motivation for them attacking us, while ignoring the millions we've killed and the dictators we've installed to rule over them is silly.
d,e,f-Most Muslims have never read the Qur'an. People tend to become radical when you starve their children no matter which religion they adhere to. There's plenty of violence in the Bible, much of it more offensive and unjust than what is found in the Qur'an. But Christians aren't fighting holy wars. If China overthrew our leaders and installed dictators that killed us and shipped our resources back to China due to forced trade agreements, and further if China starved our kids if one of their propped up dictators didn't do exactly what they demanded after a while, you might start to see more Christians quoting Num 31, I Sam 15, and the famous Psalm (I forget where) which says "Blessed is he that would dash your children against the stones." We'd get radical. I can admit that I would. My kids are everything to me.
I have responded to Amaryah and Rev. Wright at great length in a new post:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...can-on-
rev.html
Commenting by HaloScan
