Could we get Pastor Wright a reality TV show

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree. It's an allegory of the need to repent, to return to your original God, even if it means removing you from your contemporary society, through a Savior figure. It was merely an allegory for the true Christ.

It is not a discussion of combating social oppression but to rely upon God to release you from bondage. Did the Israelites, or simply commence observing the passages of their God?

Religion is not properly about social justice, but personal righteousness. It is OFT misused and abused by those in power to commit social injustice, because those in power claim the authority of the Almighty to justify their deeds.

you're just trolling.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Why do YOU get to define what constitutes religiousness for black people?

I haven't been following this whole discussions, but I'm curious what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you support polygamy as a form of worship? How about blood animal sacrifice?

Society has a right to place limits on what constitutes worship, and individuals can accept or reject whatever they want. If I see Jeremiah Wright pounding his pulpit (literally) about the evils of American foreign policy, I have a right to call that "not religion" and lobby/vote accordingly.

Believe me, I've had plenty of people tell me what a farce MY religion is.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I haven't been following this whole discussions, but I'm curious what this statement is supposed to mean. Do you support polygamy as a form of worship? How about blood animal sacrifice?

Society has a right to place limits on what constitutes worship, and individuals can accept or reject whatever they want. If I see Jeremiah Wright pounding his pulpit (literally) about the evils of American foreign policy, I have a right to call that "not religion" and lobby/vote accordingly.

Believe me, I've had plenty of people tell me what a farce MY religion is.

I think you just demonstrated his point. His comment was in the context of whether or not the political experience can mesh with the religious experience for the black church. He noted we shouldn't try to define what they consider to be a religious experience. You came back with polygamy and animal sacrifice which are hardly analogous. Certainly there are limits on what we consider legitimate religious practices, but we give wide latitude to religions and only draw a line for extreme acts (like animal sacrifice). Something more analogous, your religious experience, has been questioned in the past by others and you seem to indicate you resent such questioning and view it as illegitimate. If so, the same would apply to the black church.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you just demonstrated his point. His comment was in the context of whether or not the political experience can mesh with the religious experience for the black church. He noted we shouldn't try to define what they consider to be a religious experience. You came back with polygamy and animal sacrifice which are hardly analogous. Certainly there are limits on what we consider legitimate religious practices, but we give wide latitude to religions and only draw a line for extreme acts (like animal sacrifice). Something more analogous, your religious experience, has been questioned in the past by others and you seem to indicate you resent such questioning and view it as illegitimate. If so, the same would apply to the black church.

Well, I sort of conflated two topics. Polygamy and animal sacrifice are not analogous because they are illegal, and we are talking about legitimacy in the political realm, which is much more poorly defined.

In that realm, individuals (rather than the state) can absolutely define what is a legitmate religious experience and what isn't. I don't know that I "resent" that others have discounted my experiences--that is their right too. They and I disagree, and hopefully we do so politely. But it's my right to hold my opinon their church isn't true, or their beliefs are false, or that their "Spirit" is a fabrication, or whatever. And to say so.

Politics and religion make poor bedfellows. People have gotten their pants in a twist CONSTANTLY over the perception that George Bush (allegedly) might think he has divine approval. I didn't see you mounting your white horse on his behalf.

In the case of Jeremiah Wright, it's even easier. The man clearly has a political agenda and is unafraid to leverage his religion to push it. It's my, or Arch's, or anyone else's "right" to call that for what it is. I don't need to justify my "right" to do so to Kite, you, or anyone else.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

How do you square this opinion of yours with the fact that between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young they attempted to form theocratic governments at the town, city, state and national level?

JS and BY failed so it must not work, right? I don't fault them for trying, but it shows that it can't work, if even those two failed miserably.

Originally Posted by KiteRider

You left this part off of your sentence there. Don't pretend like you're not doing this.

Outside observers can make observations and I can think of no example in the history of man, which is verifiable, the City of Enoch is nonverifiable, where the mixture of religion and politics works or worked. So you argue that my making real life examples as "telling black what will work" as inserting a personal opinion. No, this is evident from the realm of recorded history.

Mankind uses religion, if used politically, for oppression and for a call to authority. Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, Islam, the Crusades, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Incans and so forth. Mixing religion with politics is always ultimately grounds for oppression and overriding reason with emotion. It is doomed to failure every time. I call bullshit on anybody who tries to argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by KiteRider

What is that supposed to mean? Gibberish.

Who are the three sociologists using grand narratives? I may have built in ironies, or contradictions if you understood what I was implying. Check out Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto. You can skip Weber if you don't like him.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you're just trolling.

I look upon Moses as an allegory for the Christ figure. We do not know if Moses existed, or if he existed in the form which tradition relates.

However, as a symbol he is powerful for the religious imagery of a salvific figure rising up out of the desert to instruct in the law of salvation.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I look upon Moses as an allegory for the Christ figure. We do not know if Moses existed, or if he existed in the form which tradition relates.

However, as a symbol he is powerful for the religious imagery of a salvific figure rising up out of the desert to instruct in the law of salvation.

somebody (I think it may have been you) justified a political role for religion using 2nd Isaiah. Somebody (I think it was you) noted that the civil rights movement was incubated in black churches.

Now it's hard to take you seriously.

That the Exodus story is allegorical (and I don't believe it is) just bolsters my point. "It didn't really happen, but we need a story about liberation from oppression." There was a great deal of human action in the event (midwives, Pharoah's daughter, the birth of a leader from among the elite).

The Exodus story is what powered the abolitionist impulse of American Jews. It's liberation theology that formed the ideological underpinnings for the civil rights movement.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Who are the three sociologists using grand narratives? I may have built in ironies, or contradictions if you understood what I was implying. Check out Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and Vilfredo Pareto. You can skip Weber if you don't like him.

sociology sucks. protestant work ethic is a load of crock.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

sociology sucks. protestant work ethic is a load of crock.

And you wonder why Seattle questions your approach.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

somebody (I think it may have been you) justified a political role for religion using 2nd Isaiah. Somebody (I think it was you) noted that the civil rights movement was incubated in black churches.

Now it's hard to take you seriously.

That the Exodus story is allegorical (and I don't believe it is) just bolsters my point. "It didn't really happen, but we need a story about liberation from oppression." There was a great deal of human action in the event (midwives, Pharoah's daughter, the birth of a leader from among the elite).

The Exodus story is what powered the abolitionist impulse of American Jews. It's liberation theology that formed the ideological underpinnings for the civil rights movement.

The fact that people you have used religion to justify political movements doesn't mean it should have happened that way.

The civil rights movement was necessary and would have eventually happened no matter what.