I agree with you that the whole thing is troubling. However, I also understand that liberation theology is characterized by hyperbole and aggressive, controversial statements that are not a conclusion, but rather an invitation to question the moral dynamic being presented at the time.

Let's use an example here: What if I were to state the following axiom to you, Spencer:

How would you react? Indulge me and play this to its conclusion, if you will. Give me your reaction to that statement.

Your example has very little to do with the question I asked. Does silence lend consent? I say it can lend consent,Obama remained "silent" for 20 years regarding Rev. Wright's racist comments. When called to explain this silence,he finally rejected the comments.I say Obama used that congregation and they used him.How else can one explain his silence for two decades? Obama is either a long suffering Saint or a common politician.Yes,some things are said "face to face" and some things like gender bashing are said behind closed doors,often to a "receptive" audience.

Bottom line and I have gone on record with this in this forum,when you mix Politics and Religion one is on dangerous ground. I think at least Obama would now agree with that. Obama's silence on Wright's clearly racist rhetoric is not that easy to excuse. I refuse to defend him and his contradictions.His silence speaks to his poor "political" judgment. It's one thing to sell one's soul or conscience for the World.. but for the White House?

If Obama truly Objected to Wright's racist rhetoric why did he wait 20 years.Only a Saint or politician would have that much patience or gall.There comes a time with all decent fair minded people when "conscience" trumps raciast rhetoric.Obama's conscience was AWOL for 20 years.Why? because he "needed" that base in his rise within the black community! It worked but unfortunately now he has to answer for his silence.I firmly believe he had to know that this day would one day come to pass when he sought National office. Let him now answer for himself,he has and right off the bat he contradicted himself. Will this destroy his campaighn? No,but it is damaged in Independent circles and with all who have some sense of integrity.In my view,Obama's sudden concern with Wright's rhetoric is too little and far too late!

In answer to your question,there are not two but three types of straight people in this world. The third type,like myself,never judges anyone by gender!

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

We'll get to your other point in just a moment. Now, seeing your reaction to what was obviously a hyperbolized and over dramatized statement (which I do not believe for one second and you know me well enough to agree that I don't really believe that, right?), a dialogue gets opened not only about gay/straight relations but even about gender. That's if we carry this hypothetical any further...

My point is that Obama's silence can be construed as acquiescence but to what is he actually acquiescing? Is acquiescing to the idea that "America is like Al Qaida"? Probably not. I can't fathom that he would. Perhaps he is acquiescing, not to the hyperbole, but to the need for the discussion (and in our example, myriad discussions) that the hyperbole instigates.

That's just how liberation theology works. It takes an extreme and often angry position, draws an unlikely but thought provoking comparison, and then as the dust settles and the heat subsides, there is a catharsis of sorts.

Keep in mind that we're Catholic and such antics are kind of foreign to our spiritual experience.

Ummm...

Did you just says that Obama's silence could be showing the need for discussion?...That's sounds quite contradictory...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

No. His acquiescence to the need for this discussion doesn't translate into acquiescence of the tactics used to bring about that discussion.

And let me raise another issue: what was he supposed to do? Was he supposed to initiate some press conference to denounce his pastor if he wasn't called upon to do so? Why? Why would he take that kind of action before it was necessary? I know I wouldn't.

Gotchya...My two brains cells connect better with that...

What was he supposed to do?...

Well the BOLD thing would be to be vocal and shout down the pastor either during the sermon itself or to group other members of the congregation together and take a stand...That wouldn't be expected...doable, but not expected...

What should've been done if he wasn't going to be vocal about it would be simple...

Stand up...walk out...don't look back...find another pastor...and done LONG before he was a US Senator...

Done in total silence...Never would've been an issue...In fact, if he was sincere about it, he could easily say "I used to be a member of his flock, but his rhetoric I found dispicable and decided I wasn't going to be around for such trash." if he was ever questioned about him being there by the press at a later date...

He would've been looked at as uncompromising on his values and calls for racial unity...

Of course, he shouldn'y have done it FOR political reasons, but the result would've been extremely beneficial...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

So let me ask you this then: is he not supposed to have human connections like a normal person? Supposedly, this man was a spiritual mentor and brought him into his Christian faith. I would find it rather hard to dismiss my priest if he made a few comments every couple years that were utterly dispicable. From my understanding, this isn't a doctrine and dogma of Wright's; it was a hyperbole that is being portrayed as a norm.

I use hyperbole all the time when it is a useful literary tool. The example I gave Spence was a hyperbole, but it provoked thought and added dimensions in Spence even though he knew we were working with a hypothetical.

No...

He followed Farrakan to meet and greet with Quadafi in Libya, and still has the blatantly racial divisiveness of "Black Family Values" on his church's website...

It IS a dogma...

As for being the pastor that introduced Obama to his Christian faith, that's sad...

That's like saying "Charles Manson taught me to drive, so he's good guy for that at least."...

He could've CHOSEN to get his Christian faith through better routes...dontchya think?...

Your admitting to use it as an exercise...

But you're giving Wright the benefit of the doubt that he's doing the same...

That can be a cheap copout...The next time I hear a skinhead say "Kill all the Jews and niggers", I'll just say "Hey!...All he's doing is using hyperbole to start a meaningful discussion."...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Wright MEANT what Wright said...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

That depends,I'm a Charismatic Catholic,believe me,we have had Catholics walk right out of our service and others simply sat back and laughed at us.The strange thing is this,we are the "oldest" form of Catholicism and our fellow Catholics see us as "New Age" when the opposit is true.I tell you the truth,if our priest "consistently" made racist remarks,I would indeed walk out of that church and find another. Obama had "options",he decided the best option was to remain silent "until" the heat was put on him.

Again,for the third time..Obama needed and used that congregation to build black support in his rise to power. He used them and they used him. Many black candidates find the church "handy" for building a base. Obama,until now,has simply been more successful. I do not question Obama's Christian faith. I question his "choice" of congregation and his "silence" when the Shepherd was not preaching love and unity but hate and division.

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

This situation has changed drastically. I have been willing to accept the argument that this 22 second clip that they keep playing over and over was a convenient portrayal of Wright that was not the norm. After hearing the report last night that this is the portrayal he allowed to be distributed on DVD, I can't accept that argument anymore.