Archive - May 4, 2008 - topic

Date
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
Type
Jeremiah Wright at the NAACP
The Associated Press

Jeremiah Wright has become the face of black liberation theology in America.

Featured Topic | Posted 18 weeks 13 hours ago

Does black liberation theology matter?

An upshot of the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's ex-pastor is the new focus on black liberation theology.

Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is one of the foremost adherents of this theology. A man of capacious learning and ego, Wright stands condemned of late as a incendiary radical for his views that the American government may have created AIDS and that the 9/11 terror attacks were payback for the sins of U.S. foreign policy

Read More

Ben likes: The peculiar theology of black liberation

Spengler/Asia Times

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].

In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a "drop of the bucket" and "dust on the scales", in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the "Chosen People."

That is the "biblical scholarship" to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence.

Read More

Joel likes: Project Trinity

Kelefa Sanneh/New Yorker

“Christianity is the white man’s religion.” That was Malcolm X’s verdict, and though he meant it to be final, a generation of black Christian leaders decided to treat it as provisional. In 1969, a thirty-one-year-old theologian named James H. Cone published “Black Theology & Black Power,” a short, astringent book that Wright would use as a blueprint for Trinity. Cone proposed a reciprocal arrangement: just as the Black Power movement could find redemption in the Church, so the Church -- dominated and distorted by generations of white men -- could find redemption in the Black Power movement. He wrote that there was “a need for a theology whose sole purpose is to emancipate the gospel from its ‘whiteness’ so that blacks may be capable of making an honest self-affirmation through Jesus Christ.” And he argued that, since African-American suffering was such a powerful metaphor for the suffering of Christ, color-blind Christianity was a contradiction in terms. “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen,” he wrote. “God has chosen black people!”

Like many brash-sounding manifestos of the era, this one came with fine-print qualifications. Throughout the book, Cone was careful to explain that a black-centered Church need not be a black-separatist Church. And even the simplest phrases -- “black people,” for instance -- turned out to be slippery. It wasn’t about being “physically black,” he wrote. “To be black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.” In his view, blackness was as radically inclusive as Christianity itself, and just as demanding.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Gas prices
The Associated Press

The prices keep going up and up and up...

Featured Topic | Posted 18 weeks 1 day ago

Should oil companies be subject to a "windfall profits" tax?

Exxon Mobil announced its first-quarter profit last week -- $10.9 billion, up 17 percent from a year ago and very nearly a record for the company. This at a time when consumers are feeling the pain of record-high prices at gasoline pump.

Read More

Ben likes: Windfall profits for dummies

Wall Street Journal

Exxon's profits are soaring with the recent oil price spike, but the energy industry's earnings aren't as outsized as the politicians seem to think. Thomson Financial calculates that profits from the oil and natural gas industry over the past year were 8.3% of investment, while the all-industry average is 7.8%. And this was a boom year for oil. An analysis by the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor finds that between 1970 and 2003 (which includes peak and valley years for earnings) the oil and gas business was "less profitable than the rest of the U.S. economy." These are hardly robber barons.

This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?

Read More

Joel likes: Levy is needed on oil profit windfalls

David Lazarus/Los Angeles Times

After thinking about it a bit, I suppose I have to grudgingly acknowledge that a windfall profits tax isn't the solution. Like many people, I find the oil companies' profits obscene. But they don't control the market, and, yes, they're in business to make money for shareholders. But that doesn't mean they're totally off the hook. Subsidies? Sayonara. The last thing these guys need are tax breaks. Lawmakers should immediately terminate all government programs that give the oil industry unfair (and unnecessary) advantages.

And like Spider-Man says, with great power comes great responsibility. The oil companies should be required to devote a specific amount of their annual profit to public transportation and alternative energy projects.

Call that a tax if you like. I see it as a recognition of the companies' enormous potential to have a positive effect on society, rather than just being first-class riders on the economic gravy train.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google