While Mitch Daniels had a morally embarrassing interview where he displayed the cowardice and back tracking his “Inoffensive” campaign meme has been known by the Huckafraud (A.K.A Mike Huckabee) decided in an interview with Christianity today to show why he is an unserious Christian and unserious political figure
If people went back and heard every sermon I heard when I was a little kid and some of the more fundamentalist pastors were yelling from the pulpit at me, if they took every one of those sermons and lifted out of them certain phrases and things, it could be scandalous, but only out of the context of the bigger picture. That’s why I thought that a lot of the focus on Jeremiah Wright was misplaced.
But when the same lenses of questioning was put on Mitt Romney, a Mormon, the Huckafraud had a VERY different calculus
I don’t think they should, unless that person advances something truly bizarre. I’m more interested in, Do they live up to the tenets of their own faith? Let’s say if a Catholic says, “I’m Catholic but I’m also pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage,” I’d say whoa. It’s not that you’re a Catholic that’s disturbing, it’s disturbing that you would give your allegiance to a church and yet deny the very fundamental doctrines. I would wonder why that is—is it so empty and meaningless to you that you take it almost as membership in a club rather than devotion to and adherence to a set of beliefs? Those things are of far more concern to me than simply that a person happens to have a faith, whether it’s similar to mine or very different.
With an Irish Compliment he said it wasn’t wrong to attack Mitt as a mormon but you should measure him by the yardstick of what his church teaches and his adherence. This is an excellent standard and one you should apply when voting for some one. Take Nancy Pelosi. She made rather definitive statements of doctrine that she got called on the carpet on.
While Beck isn’t 100% right on the subject Wright’s church is (and you listen to his sermons you can tell) by Black Liberation Theology
wight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, says black liberation theology often portrays Jesus as a brown-skinned revolutionary. He cites the words of Mary in the Magnificat — also known as the “Song of Mary” — in which she says God intends to bring down the mighty and raise the lowly. Hopkins also notes that in the book of Matthew, Jesus says the path to heaven is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners. And the central text for black liberation theology can be found in Chapter 4 of Luke’s gospel, where Jesus outlines the purpose of his ministry.
“Jesus says my mission is to eradicate poverty and to bring about freedom and liberation for the oppressed,” Hopkins says. “And most Christian pastors in America skip over that part of the book.
One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus’ work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone’s context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ’s liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.
For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black — “blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. “White theology,” when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God’s liberating work in the world.
Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. “What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men,” to use James Cone’s words, whose existence is “threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?” If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans.
More importantly, there are reasons to believe that many African-Americans are beginning to reject Christianity. The growing presence of Islam in the African-American community is nurtured by a variety of forces, but one of its principle sources of strength is the sense within many blacks of a tremendous gap that exists between what takes place in the Church on Sunday, and how church people live the rest of the week. Many of the new converts to Islam were Christian, but they testify to seeing little coherence between the worship of the church, and the rough and tumble world of the streets the rest of the week.
Black Liberation Theology is not Christian and violates the fundamental Transcendental values of all faiths in the so called Pan Abrahamic family of faiths. And while the Mormon church does have some issues in qualifying as Christian (I say they aren’t, but its a debatable subject). Their is no honest debate that Black Liberation Theology is not Christian. And Obama demonstrates that Black Liberation Theology influences his politics.
The refusal to look at this shows why Huckafraud is a bad Christian and a bad political figure