Posted on 03/17/2008 12:47:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Early Show did its best this morning to help Barack Obama climb out of the hole he's dug for himself with his close association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
In a set-up segment, CBS's Dean Reynolds rhetorically asked: "the question is whether the rhetoric is so remarkable, because in African-American churches pastors often seek to rouse their congregants to self-reliance by speaking harshly about the country's troubled racial past and the need to overcome it."
Nice try, but how does accusing the US government of introducing AIDS and giving black people drugs equate to a call for self-reliance?
Reynolds concluded by stating that the Obama campaign is concerned that its candidate has been "victimized" in the same way the Trinity church claims Rev. Wright has.
Then it was on to a Russ Mitchell interview of the Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts, III of Harlem's famed Abyssinian Baptist Church. The thrust of Mitchell's questions and Rev. Butts' responses was that the controversy is being blown out of proportion, that fiery rhetoric is a tradition in black churches with roots in the Bible and even in the words of Jesus. Moreover, it would be wrong to expect congregants to criticize their pastors' words.
RUSS MITCHELL: When it comes to the African-American church, how surprised should people be when they hear a pastor, from the pulpit, giving a controversial message using such strong language?
BUTTS: Well, the strength of the language of course is questionable. However, the prophetic tradition of the African-American church has been such that we have had to criticize the nation that we love so dearly in order to win our human and civil rights. We've had to speak harshly about the injustices to draw people's attention to the real problems that we've had to face. The shock value is nothing new. The Prophets used it in ancient Israel. The Disciples used it, Jesus called the Pharisees whitened sepulchres or whitened tombs. So the shock rhetoric is not unusual in pulpits, black or white, but certainly in the black community because people have to have the point driven home, and they have to have made vivid. And sometimes the language can be awfully powerful.
A bit later, Mitchell lobbed Butts some softballs clearly intended to get Obama off the hook. The Reverend didn't squander his plate appearance.
MITCHELL: When people hear Reverend Wright speaking on YouTube, on television, they hear the congregants applauding. Is it fair to assume that everyone in the congregation walks out of that church agreeing with what the pastor says?
BUTTS: Absolutely not. We have thinking people in our congregations, people who know how to discern between the very fiery and forceful rhetoric and the actual application in life. I don't know the full context of Reverend Wright's sermons, all of them, but I do know that all of us have used strong language from time to time in order to drive home a point. It's in the prophetic tradition. It's not unusual to the black church either. I mean, it's used in churches. It's used in synagogues. It's used in mosques. It is the sacred rhetoric. And it is often forceful. It is often powerful. It is often condemnnatory. In the Bible they call the great civilization of Babylon, pardon the expression, a whore.
Mitchell returned to that theme at interview's end.
MITCHELL: Black congregants are reluctant, are they not, to criticize their pastor in public, even when the pastor says something as strong, as controversial as what Reverend Wright said?
BUTTS: That's right. I'm very surprised at any congregant who would denounce his or her pastor.
MITCHELL: Why is that?
BUTTS: Well, because people love their pastors, and in the churches they understand the rhetoric. See, you shouldn't look at this as they walk into church and the pastor says something shocking and they immediately run to it. They understand what is radical rhetoric and what is the practical application of the love of God to everybody.
HA HA
Victimized? Wright has a Presidential candidate attending his church, Oprah Winfrey comes around every now and then, and I didn’t see any emaciated cardboard-box dwellers in those video clips either.
The idiot who wrote this poor excuse for "journalism" -- conveniently neglects to point out which racist screeds were intended to "rouse their congregantes to self-reliance"...
Sound to me like the screeds were intended to rouse their congregations into a hate whitey frenzy and hate America....to explain their own poor condition.
Unexplained - is how this could be true with so many black millionaires in the "church" -- including Obama, his wife and Ophra -- before she left.
Blacks in America who are this angry and dissatisfied -- should refuse all federal/state/county/city welfare payments, set asides, affirmative action and go where they will be treated with more respect.....
Mr Butts, was Jesus a Jew or was Jesus black?
“Rev” Wright looks a lot like Jesus, but he shaw doe nt act like Him nor talk like Him.
“Is it fair to assume that everyone in the congregation walks out of that church agreeing with what the pastor says?”
Let me put it this way. If I had been at Mass and a Priest started speaking about African Americans in such derogatory terms, you can bet your a** that I would have gotten up that moment, walked out and never returned.
So yes, you’ve pegged it - if they didn’t walk out, they agreed with him. And considering the size of the congregation, they come back for more every week.
Somebody oughta ax the Rev Wright whats wrong with the white plight.
So Oprah attends this lunatic’s church as well? Perhaps it’s time for that to get a little airplay - has she commented on Reverand Racist’s rants?
We could start by pointing out that Jesus condemned lies, coveting and theft. These are the three foundation points of the socialist agenda that Obama wants to advance.
In fact we can see in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20 that Jesus understands and supports the essential points of free market capitalism. This parable ends with the rhetorical question that strikes directly at the heart of today's collectivist ideology: “Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?”
This ties directly back to the elaboration of free market principles within a supportive legal framework and consideration for the needs of the poor expressed in Leviticus 19. In that chapter, the Eternal directed Moses
to state that a farmer had to reserve the corner of his field during the harvest to allow the poor to glean their food. (verse 9-10).
There are essential points here that directly contrast with the socialist welfare state of today.
In Lev 19:9, the farmer still owned the field. His obligation to allow gleaning of a corner did not destroy his property rights to the land. Moreover, he did not have to worry that the corner would be ever-elastic and expand every year to “fill urgent unmet needs”.
Today, by making “charity” a function of government funded through taxation, the instant the tax obligation is incurred, government takes title to the money even if it has not yet been paid to the citizen. This destroys the property right. It also disconnects the giver from the recipient. It foments political power brokering by allowing a candidate for office to tell recipient voters how much money he is going to loot from people who pay taxes. The very nature of the system destroys any human willingness to see that the poor person's real needs are actually taken care of. The taxpayer instead focuses on complying with the law, and an army of professional accountants is available to make sure he doesn't pay a penny more than the law requires.
The simply human need to have the recipient thank the giver is not a part of the present system. The two are placed in a tug of war, zero sum game, over the assets of the more productive members of society.
It is shameful how low this system has taken all of us. It is even more shameful how some politicians want to exploit and advance this system even more.
That has nothing to do with self-reliance, and they know it. They favor black separatism, self-loathing and hate for Whitey. They would love it if there were racial strife. They would cheer it on. They would fuel it
Just rhetoric. Will the same kind, loving forgiveness be given to Republicans? How about the guy who said Macaca?
Blasphemy. Period.
Jesus didn’t hate anyone, turned the cheek when stricken, and forgave those who wronged Him.
Actions that I have never witnessed from a preacher of the “Black Community™.”
But the Rev Farrakhan has been ok’d by this Church, how could they possibly be misbehavin?
not ok’d actually honored.
It’s already been widely reported that Ophra attended the same church, with the same preacher...
However - after some time, she left the church..
At least, that’s the story going around....
Calvin Butts is a hate monger too.
“Obama = BUSTED”
LOL Yes, for most of us common sense folks, senator Obama is finished. There will be a lot of fancy dancing in the days ahead, and democrat stooges will pontificate on the matter one way and then the other. lol But there doesn’t seem to be any way for Obama to effectively deny the tin-foil hat, America-hating, racist bigotry of his ‘uncle’ and mentor.
Rev. Wright has said that the Government created AIDS to get rid of the black man. Whatever happened to “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? Especially from a preacher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.