Abortion and Racism
Wise words from Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, South Dakota:
“In any election people have many reasons to support one candidate or to oppose another. Some of these reasons may be wise and good, some not so good, and others simply wrong. The promotion neither of abortion nor racism can ever be a motivation for one’s vote. Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil. To do so consciously is indeed sinful. That is behavior incompatible with being a Christian. To allow racism to reign in our hearts and to determine our choice in this solemn moment for our nation is to cooperate with one of the great evils that has afflicted our society. In the words of Brothers and Sisters to Us, “It mocks the words of Jesus, ‘Treat others the way you would have them treat you.’”
(Hat tip: David Gibson)
Notice the implication. If your vote against Obama because of his race, you are cooperating with evil, no matter how awful his position on abortion or any other important issue may be. And I have a sneaking suspicion that more people oppose him because of his race and background than because of his views on the right to life of the unborn.
I think your ‘sneaking suspicion’ says more about you than the electorate. As Ramesh Ponnuru has consistently observed, “pro-lifers are more likely to vote on abortion than pro-choicers, and that greater intensity has translated into a political benefit for pro-life candidates. With time, moreover, the notion that the pro-life position is a political liability has become even less tenable.”
I know you never tire of unsubstantiated attacks, and could be tried for war crimes based on all of the strawmen you’ve illegitimately waged war against, but could you at least provide some statistics when you make such inflammatory assertions?
I suspect that there are more people who will vote against Sarah Palin because of sexism, than because of disagreement with her views. (Don’t expect me to provide evidence of this, of course.)
Of course you do.
“sneaking suspicion” is an interesting choice of words.
Again, I will probably vote for Obama myself, but your continued need to tell us (or more notably, yourself), that McCain voters are a bunch of racists suggests to me the efforts to quiet a rumbling conscience.
Since we’re all being very suspicious, let me add that I expect more people will vote for Obama in this election because of his race than will vote against him on account of it.
As Obama would say, this type of assertion represents ‘small, ugly’ politics. That’s why he relies on people like MM.
Why do you think Bishop Cupich made such a direct statement?
How many VN readers do you think this would apply to?
And of those, how many do you think would be convinced to change their minds based on this post?
My guess is close to zero, which again indicates your just writing to make yourself feel better about supporting Obama.
“Why do you think Bishop Cupich made such a direct statement?”
It’s one thing to acknowledge that there is racism in this country, and make sure Catholics are aware that racism is evil. Bishop Cupich is right to do that, and I am glad he did.
That is entirely different than indulging in demonization of your political opponents, saying you have a ‘sneaking suspicion’ that more of them are motivated by racism than pro-life sentiment. Granted, you do this a lot, but that doesn’t make it any more legitimate.
Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil.
Actually, the former case is the promotion of intrinsic evil. The latter is the direct participation in an intrinsic evil.
Since we’re all being very suspicious, let me add that I expect more people will vote for Obama in this election because of his race than will vote against him on account of it.
And as I have pointed out before, those two things are entirely different.
How many VN readers do you think this would apply to?
Judging from the reactions I get every time I mention Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, black theology, or the definition of racism; or make comments like the one directly above this one, I’d say quite a few.
I’ve also lost track of how many racist comments I’ve deleted from various posts I have made.
I have to say that the “sneaking suspicion” is a bit annoying and seems to signal a sense of moral superiority. I also think its flat out wrong. I think there probably are more people that are voting for Obama because of his race than voting against him for the same reason. That’s just a feeling, based on people I know, not a “sneaking suspicion”, so I can’t and won’t really put it forward as an argument. However, I do know of many, many people who are voting against him because of his views on abortion. Whether or not you agree with this reasoning, that a vote for Obama is a pro-choice vote, there are definitely more people who restrict their vote for this reason than because of his race. If you disagree with people’s application of the pro-life principle on this grounds, then make your argument there. Don’t make false, baseless, and, frankly, annoying assumptions.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that more people oppose him because of his race and background than because of his views on the right to life of the unborn.
You’re going to need some actual evidence for there to be anything other than laughable moral preening in this statement. And the evidence may well run the other way, but we’ll see.
Unbelievable.
“Why do you think Bishop Cupich made such a direct statement?”
Two thoughts. He may have heard about the problem. I know personally, for example, of priests asking church leaders for homily talking points on this very issue.
Second, Cupich’s diocese has a large Native American population. He is probably no stranger to witnessing racism.
Unbelievable
If only that were true
Jay Nordlinger has a read-worthy collection of thoughts here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MTdkNzI1NGRjYjQyZjQ2MmUzNWFiZGNhM2Q2M2EzY2Y=
I know MM’s great for traffic (inflammatory nonsense generates lots of comments), but what do his pro-Obama cheerleading and baseless accusations of racism have to do with Catholicism (apart from the fact that Catholics shouldn’t make baseless accusations)?
Sure, the post includes a quote from a bishop (and a good one), but the basic point of the post is to say racists, more than pro-lifers, account for why anybody wouldn’t support his preferred candidate. Apart from the fact that this is ridiculous, unfair, and unsupported by evidence (was that Kerry’s problem also?), what does it have to do with Catholicism?
John McG: that is not my intention. I do not believe McCain is racist, and I do not believe the vast majority of his supporters are racist. But I also believe that he is engaging in a tried-and-tested Republican trick of tapping into the deep roots of racism in various parts of the country in a latent manner. Remember Willie Horton? White hands? Call me, Harold?
This country is changing for the better on that front. The younger generation is largely post-racial. But we must also remember that segregation and the civil rights struggle are — for most people– not just something in history books, but something they lived through. Attitudes persist. It is by no accident that white over-65s (who often lean Democratic because of things like social security and medicare) are overwhelming leaning McCain this time. It is no accident that Appalachia created a hero out of Hillary Clinton– a woman who was seen as the epitime of the out-of-touch “liberal” in that part of the world not long before– largely because they could not countenance the alternative, And it is no accident that Sarah Palin is stirring up the worst in people at her rallies, all the while maintaining a “plausible deniability” distance.
For all these reasons, I am very glad that a Catholic bishops takes on this subject with the seriousness it deserves.
“For all these reasons, I am very glad that a Catholic bishops takes on this subject with the seriousness it deserves.”
Then, why won’t you address the issue with the seriousness it deserves, rather than making baseless accusations that demonize your political opponents?
Judging from the reactions I get every time I mention Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, black theology
It’s silly to assume that opposition to Jeremiah “CIA invented AIDS” Wright and James “”God is . . . against white people” Cone has anything to do with racism. Indeed, it’s rather more racist for you to smear black people in general as being necessarily represented by such inflammatory ignorance.
When the central talking point seriously discussed at National Review and other places is that McCain needs to talk about how blacks, Hispanics, and the poor caused the housing crisis and our present recession, I think claiming there is a blind spot in the present conservative movement to how others perceive it is putting it mildly.
S.B.-
If only you weren’t so racist, you would see that all non-minority americans are racists. That’s just the way we are here in the u.s. We can’t help it.
Unless, of course, you vote for Obamamessiah.
Planned Parenthood has never had such a great alibi for its racism as Barack Obama. Hence the endorsement.
Unless, of course, you vote for Obamamessiah.
No. You’re still a racist, but voting for Obamamessiah gives you racism offset credits.
Or put another way, if you confess with your mouth that Obama is President and believe in your heart that the Zeitgeist raised him to the White House, you shall be saved. In your innermost being, you will remain the totally depraved creature you are in your racist nature, but by faith you will be clothed with Obama and the Zeitgeist will impute righteousness to you.
It’s all in Calvin. All in Calvin. Dear me, what do they teach in the schools these days?
“If your vote against Obama because of his race, you are cooperating with evil, no matter how awful his position on abortion or any other important issue may be.”
This is a logical fallacy. Actually, congratulations: this single sentence contains easily two or three logical fallacies. It’s borderline incoherent.
…what does it have to do with Catholicism?
Catholicism has to do with everything.
It’s silly to assume that opposition to Jeremiah “CIA invented AIDS” Wright and James “”God is . . . against white people” Cone has anything to do with racism.
Again, S.B., you are not worth dialoguing with if you are simply going to misrepresent people’s views.
Ok, then, just so we’re clear that you’re not trying to smear anyone who criticizes Wright/Cone as “racist.”
If your vote against Obama because of his race, you are cooperating with evil, no matter how awful his position on abortion or any other important issue may be.”
This is a logical fallacy. Actually, congratulations: this single sentence contains easily two or three logical fallacies. It’s borderline incoherent.
Of course, you could maybe point out said fallacies instead of simply claiming that it is full of fallacies.
If anything, MM is not being strong enough. In fact, if you vote against Obama because of his race, you not only “cooperating with” intrinsic evil, you are committing an intrinsically evil act yourself. In fact, the proximity to the intrinsic evil could not be closer, unlike a vote for Obama in which one’s proximity to the intrinsically evil act is far more remote.
But of course, nobody could possibly be voting for McCain simply because Obama is black. There couldn’t possibly be mounds of video evidence of McCain supporters talking about how if Obama wins, “the blacks” will “take over.”
The idea that many McCain supporters are racists is a just a myth invented by the liberal media, right?
If we can all agree that racism and discrimination against blacks are still huge problems in this country, it can’t be hard to see that the racists whose existence we all admit to MUST be McCain supporters. We can safely assume that the thousands upon thousands (maybe millions) of racist americans are without doubt voting for John McCain. They ain’t voting for Obama. Please stop trying to explain away the obvious appeal that your candidate has among u.s. racists.
“Catholicism has to do with everything.”
Could you connect the dots for me? MM’s claim is that there are more racists than pro-lifers among Republicans. I said this is inflammatory partisan nonsense. Please explain why this is particularly appropriate for a Catholic blog, rather than, say, the Daily Kos.
Ok, then, just so we’re clear that you’re not trying to smear anyone who criticizes Wright/Cone as “racist.”
Of course. But I am inclined to think that those who misrepresent people like Cone are doing so either out of sheer ignorance or because of racist motives.
fus01 – MM expressed an opinion. Get over it.
This kind of stuff keeps MM busy. At least he’s not defending the pro-life value of the Freedom of Choice Act . . . not yet, anyway.
“If anything, MM is not being strong enough. In fact, if you vote against Obama because of his race, you not only “cooperating with” intrinsic evil, you are committing an intrinsically evil act yourself. In fact, the proximity to the intrinsic evil could not be closer, unlike a vote for Obama in which one’s proximity to the intrinsically evil act is far more remote.”
Patently false. First of all, you can’t “vote against” anyone, period. You can choose to vote for one individual or not. Obama isn’t entitled to my or anyone else’s vote, so my not voting for him, even if it’s based on race, is not committing any intrinsic evil. Is it cooperating with intrinsically evil racism? Definitely. But the status quo is not “vote for Obama unless you hate black people.” Some of us actually disagree with his radically pro-abortion stances.
Re: Mark,
It’s all Calvin? Dear me, and here I was thinking it was either the Age of Aquarius or something in the water.
Of course, simply because you are not racist does not give you reason to vote for Obama either. If in your heart you voted for Obama because he supports abortion and other intrinsic evils, you still committed sin. You have to avoid both, which means voting against Obama after learning the facts about him, finding he opposes the non-negotiable teaching of the Church, and voting for that reason.
However, nobody knows what’s in the heart of other people, and it is wrong to speculate, Mr. Minion. At the hour of our death, we will have to give an account to the Lord for all our actions, and for all the motives that brought them about, including those that lay in the secret corners of our hearts.
Me. Everyone.
kyrie eleison
If we can all agree that racism and discrimination against blacks are still huge problems in this country, it can’t be hard to see that the racists whose existence we all admit to MUST be McCain supporters. We can safely assume that the thousands upon thousands (maybe millions) of racist americans are without doubt voting for John McCain. They ain’t voting for Obama.
I would have to agree. Nonetheless, the fact that a few McCain supporters are racist does nothing to prove that there are MORE racists than pro-lifers, which is what MM purported to suspect.
If anything, MM is not being strong enough. In fact, if you vote against Obama because of his race, you not only “cooperating with” intrinsic evil, you are committing an intrinsically evil act yourself.
Agreed. In fact, it’s hard to see whose evil one would be “cooperating” with in such a scenario other than one’s own. If Obama were advocating racist policies, then voting for him would be cooperating with evil, though it could still be permissible for a proportionate reason. Not voting for him because of his race, by contrast, would be a fairly clear case of racism simpliciter.
Michael I. wrote “fus01 – MM expressed an opinion. Get over it.”
I am aware that he expressed an opinion. I asked about the propriety of expressing the (factually unsupported) opinion that there are more racists than pro-lifers who will vote for McCain on a Catholic blog.
And as I have pointed out before, those two things are entirely different.
That’s not what the Bishop said…
But I am inclined to think that those who misrepresent people like Cone are doing so either out of sheer ignorance or because of racist motives.
I haven’t seen anyone misrepresent Cone; usually blockquoting him is enough to make most people wince.
That’s not what the Bishop said…
I was referring to what blackadder said, not the bishop.
I haven’t seen anyone misrepresent Cone.
Look in the mirror. You characterize him by claiming that he thinks “God hates white people” when he says no such thing.
…usually blockquoting him is enough to make most people wince.
“Most people?” No, maybe most white people. And it’s important to ask why that is.
I asked about the propriety of expressing the (factually unsupported) opinion that there are more racists than pro-lifers who will vote for McCain on a Catholic blog.
Why not write about it on a Catholic blog? Can’t Catholics express opinions?
I have to say I too take exception to the fact that the whole point of this is to imply that somehow there is a ‘default’ mode that requires one to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ Obama (anything not for Obama being assumed, by default again, to be ‘against’ him). I agree with Andy that I do vote ‘for’, not ‘against’ anyone, and there is no presumption that any candidate is ‘entitled’ to my vote. However it is interesting that the argument (here and elsewhere) is usually couched in these terms. Which betrays such a level of condescension and arrogance (with the unspoken implication that of course, no intelligent person could not want to vote for Obama, it must be some kind of blindness/stupidity/racism) as to be extremely off-putting. As MM might say, I have a ‘sneaking suspicion’ that this staggering level of intellectual snobbery is how so many here seem to think.
In order for this silly example here to have any relevence, you have to find a voter who agrees with every aspect of Obama’s policy, genuinely agrees with him on every major issue, but votes for someone else solely because he is not white. I’m suppose there are some out there, just as I am equally sure that they are statistically insignificant in the overall dynamic of this election. Not saying they’re acceptable, just let’s not pretend they’re the ‘main event’ or indicative of the main focus for opposition to the Obama ticket. Any more than, as the Bishop said, anyone voting for Obama ‘solely because’ of his pro-choice stance would be (I’m sure some of them are out there too, but no one is pretending that’s ‘why’ they vote ‘against’ McCain/Palin)
It is possible to oppose Obama on policy grounds, and it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of those who vote for a different candidate do so for policy reasons (VN members’ ‘sneaking suspicions’ or rabid anecdotally-based protestations, being evidence of absolutely nothing, notwithstanding). Discussing the extreme hypotheticals like this is interesting theater, but not really indicative of a desire to have any kind of serious, substantive discussion on the issues with a principled opponents.
RM
What I put in quotation marks as to Cone was a direct quote. Deal with it.
“Most people?” No, maybe most white people. And it’s important to ask why that is.
Again, stop pretending that you speak for black people.
Give me the source and the context of that “direct quote.”
Every black person I’ve ever known would find statements like this rather ill-phrased: “If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.” Even in the hotheaded 1960s, black power activists (like Stokely Carmichael, Charles Hamilton, Nathan Wright, etc.) didn’t represent majority black opinion. What makes you slander black people today by suggesting that they would (all? mostly?) be happy with Cone?
That post contains the source of my quote upthread (suggesting that “God is . . . against white people”).
You actually did not provide the source.
You have quite a knack for taking quotes out of context, S.B. Not only do you reduce that very complex and powerful quote to “God is against white people,” you complete wrench the quote entirely from its historical context. I have come to expect this dishonesty from you at regular intervals. You do not disappoint. At least you give us something to talk about here.
As usual, you claim that I’m “dishonest” but don’t have the capacity to explain where or how. Typical mudslinging and bullying.
Yes, I did truncate the quote (and indicated as much via an ellipsis), but I didn’t change its meaning in the least. Cone is clearly saying that he thinks God is “against white people.” More than that, in the part of the quote that I left out, Cone says that if God were not against white people, God should be killed. So actually, I left out the part of the quote that makes Cone appear even more histrionic.
Typical mudslinging and bullying on your part. Yes, I did truncate the quote (and indicated as much via an ellipsis), but I didn’t change its meaning in the least. Cone is clearly saying that he thinks God is “against white people.” More than that, in the part of the quote that I left out, Cone says that if God were not against white people, God should be killed. So actually, I left out the part of the quote that makes Cone appear even more out of the mainstream.
And you still aren’t explaining why you’re slandering black people by suggesting that very many of them admire or sympathize with the likes of Cone.
I truncated the quote, but its meaning is unchanged.
And you still aren’t explaining why you’re slandering black people by suggesting that very many of them admire or sympathize with the likes of Cone.
And again, even if I were misrepresenting Cone (which I do not believe I’m doing, and which you do not demonstrate in any way), what gives you the moral ground to object to misrepresentation? You were cavalier and unapologetic in admittedly misrepresenting me in the earlier thread.
Excellent post, MM.
I know just yesterday a blogger at a purportedly Catholic blog referred to Obama supporters as “brothers of Cain”.
Is not that unbelievable? I hope this is just the case of a clueless fellow knows nothing about the usage of the term “mark (stain) of Cain” in humanity’s fallen history.
But maybe my hope is naive here.
What if I’m voting for John McCain because his running mate is a woman?
What if I’m voting for John McCain because his running mate is a woman?
No problems there. Except for the fact that you’d be a damned liar, and lying is an intrinsically evil act too. ;)
And the Obama voter lifted his eyes to heaven and said, “I thank you that I am not like that McCain voter over there. I am purely motivated by my concern for the Common Good. I see a broad spectrum of issues instead of just one. And he’s probably lying about that, and only voting for McCain because he’s not black. Thank you for making me so much better.”
A little context on Cone and Wright
Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:
“There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity [UCC]. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone’s groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.” Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, “Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison” (in Living Stones in the Household of God).”
“And I have a sneaking suspicion that more people oppose him because of his race and background than because of his views on the right to life of the unborn.”
Doesa racism remain with us? Unfortuntely, yes.
Will there be some here and there who vote against Obama because of his race? Undoubtedly.
But this imputation of base motive to pro-lifers in aggregate is contemptible, sir. You should know as well as anyone that African-American babies are aborted at rates far higher than any other group.
If you have any decency, you will withdraw this post, or issue an apology.
No problems there. Except for the fact that you’d be a damned liar, and lying is an intrinsically evil act too. ;)
Busted! :)
No, I’m voting for John McCain because I believe he’s the better man. A man of greater honor, integrity, and with a better ideological compass (not perfect in my view, just better). The fact that his running mate is “smoking hot in a naughty librarian sort of way” is just a bonus. ;)
Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.
Perfect advice for Michael Iafrate . . . .
Morning’s Minion,
You have forgotten that there might be some people who are going to vote for Obama even though they are racist. Some racists might see having a black president as furthering the cause of racism. After all, for these people, it’s about having the greatest amount of racism possible in this country. And to vote for the “pro-white” candidate does not necessarily mean an increase in the amount of racism. The policies of the “pro-white” candidate might actually effectively decrease the amount of racism in the country. For this reason, some racists may be actually voting for Obama, and you should not assume a vote for Obama means the person is not a racist.
Actually, we have plenty of test cases to disprove MM’s “sneaking suspicion”. The Democrats have run a succession of white candidates whose views are slightly less extremely liberal than Obama’s and most of them have lost. If it was true that people were voting against Obama primarily because of his race rather than because of his views, we would expect to see him performing significantly _worse_ than most Democratic candidates over the last 40 years rather than better.
Hector, you might be interested to do some research on how Cone’s views matured since his 1969 book. Check out God of the Oppressed, for example. I would suggest the same for S.B., but I know he won’t do so. You seem like more of a decent, open-minded fellow.
“less extremely liberal”: what in God’s name does that mean? Obama is certainly mired in American individualism which hails directly from the liberal tradition, but– what are you talking about in particular???
Thank you, Michael I have begun to read God of the Oppressed
The culture of peace is built by rejecting at the outset every sort of racism and intolerance, by withstanding racist propaganda, by keeping economic and political ambition within due limits and by decisively rejecting violence and all forms of exploitation.
http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=91187&query=racism&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=racism%20
John Paul II
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
ON THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE END
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR IN EUROPE
Monday, 8 May 1995
Check out God of the Oppressed, for example. I would suggest the same for S.B., but I know he won’t do so.
So says the guy who never seems to read anything that isn’t far leftist (judging from every source he ever quotes and everything mentioned on his website).
In any event, I’ve read plenty of black power stuff — Malcolm X’s writings (Autobiography, essays), Nathan Wright, Carmichael and Hamilton. I actually find a good bit of it rather appealing. That said, what I’ve seen of Cone shows him to be so dimwitted (namely, the video where he says that Clarence Thomas is white) that I’d rather not waste even a penny trying to acquire any of his books; there are too many books in the world that I’d rather read.
Re: the use of the phrase “brothers of Cain” that Mark DeFrancisis referenced:
Reading it out of whatever its original context was, and in the context of this post, I make the connection and see your concern. Had I read it in, say, a post about Obama’s views and history vis a vis abortion, I probably would not have made the pernicious connection to the “mark of Cain” that is more apparent in this context. I probably would have assumed the poster was alluding to Cain’s murder of Abel and tying that in to abortion, and not delved deeper.
At the least, I think (based on the information I have) that it is reasonable to suppose that the blogger either was not aware of the historical use of the phrase, or did not make the connection when he or she wrote it. And I think that charity would strongly suggest that we make that assumption, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Darwin’s point is excellent, and the smear-mongers here won’t be able to answer it.
So says the guy who never seems to read anything that isn’t far leftist (judging from every source he ever quotes and everything mentioned on his website).
Wow. You even know the depths of my reading habits. Are you the Son of God? Why the hell are all of us following this Obama guy when we have you?!
Are you the Son of God?
Whoa! Shocking blasphemy! I’m sure M.Z’s gonna be all over this.
Oh! Wait! It didn’t mock Obama, so it’s not blasphemous.
Well, Michael, given how much you like to brag about your reading, why do you never brag about reading anything except leftist stuff? Is it just that you’re embarrassed to admit (in front of the crowds that you admire) that you ever read any non-partisan books (let alone books of a conservative bent)?
Good point, Mark — about four of the bloggers here should immediately pounce on Michael for supposedly making fun of the “Son of God,” by the same logic that they’ve used elsewhere.
Well, no. The logic they’ve used elsewhere has it’s own peculiar internal consistency. If’ it mocks Obama, it’s blasphemy. If McCain was the one tortured, then it’s okay to make fun of torture victims. You’re not Obama, so mocking you is not blasphemy. McCain is not human but a sort of devil in human form who opposes The One, so jokes about his torture are fine.
It’s wonderful how partisanship can derange the minds of both the Left and the Right.
Ah! My comments are now “awaiting moderation” lest I contribute any doubleplus ungoodthink to this free and open discussion.
I would speculate your inflamatory style lends itself to triggering keywords.
M.Z. Right, Mark’s words triggered one of the catch-words which make for automatic moderation. Of course, it is interesting to see how he complains here — since he is famous for his own moderation and deletion of posts which should have had neither. But that’s neither here nor there; Mark is not on automatic moderation; but if he wants to be , I am sure we could make that happen.
Well, Michael, given how much you like to brag about your reading, why do you never brag about reading anything except leftist stuff? Is it just that you’re embarrassed to admit (in front of the crowds that you admire) that you ever read any non-partisan books (let alone books of a conservative bent)?
Citing books sometimes is “bragging” about what I read?
Are you seriously suggesting that I do not read “conservative” and/or “non-partisan” books? Or that I’m “embarrassed” about reading “conservative” and/or “non-partisan” books? What would a “non-partisan” book be? An encyclopedia or dictionary? Are you for real? Would you like me to compile a list of “Michael Iafrate’s Favorite Conservative and/or Non-Partisan Books” for you?
…in front of the crowds that you admire…
What crowds? The crowd of Vox Nova readers? Man, I am ALL ABOUT looking good in front of Vox Nova readers and making them happy. You’re right; I’m very self conscious about how good I can make myself look for you, S.B.
Well, I was kidding a bit, just joshing you. Nonetheless, while perhaps you’re not aware that you’re giving this impression, it always seems that the books you list as “currently reading,” as well as just about everything you ever cite and discuss, is coming from a leftist perspective. Whether it’s posting about the insights of Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, or sneering at folks who haven’t read enough liberation theology, or pointing to ZMag’s critiques of capitalism, etc., etc., it’s all very one-sided.
Maybe behind the scenes you’re also reading Friedman, Hayek, Ronald Coase, David Frum, Michael Gerson, Whittaker Chambers, Allan Carlson, Thomas Sowell, Robert George, Peter Lawler, Richard Neuhaus, etc., etc., that sort of author. True?
As for non-partisan books, I’m thinking of the sort of non-fiction that is written by, just as examples: Malcolm Gladwell, Jane Jacobs, Steven Levitt, Nassim Taleb, Neil Postman, Jonathan Haidt, Judith Rich Harris, Michael Pollan, Daniel Gilbert, Ian Ayres, Sudhir Venkatesh, Michael Lewis, Richard Thaler, or a zillion other authors who write interesting and insightful books that aren’t selling an agenda as to politics or religion.
Would you like me to compile a list of “Michael Iafrate’s Favorite Conservative and/or Non-Partisan Books” for you?
That actually wouldn’t be a bad idea. Both this blog and a lot of others might find it useful to back off from incessantly partisan politics or the “I’m more Catholic than you” controversies, and instead focus on the many aspects of life that are just intellectually interesting.
S.B. – Considering my politics, I don’t know why it surprises you that I mostly cite writers that I agree with.
…sneering at folks who haven’t read enough liberation theology…
Correction: I will certainly criticize people who make all sorts of ridiculous claims about liberation theology (or black theology, in your case) when it is obvious that they have not read much of it, if any at all.
Your list of “non-partisan” authors is interesting. My point above, of course, is that I don’t think any book is neutral or non-partisan.
Your list of “non-partisan” authors is interesting.
Then you should check out some of those authors. Well worth anyone’s time.
My point above, of course, is that I don’t think any book is neutral or non-partisan.
I think you know full well what I mean, but you’re just defining those terms with incredible expansiveness, for no apparent reason.
Again, though, it’s repeatedly puzzling that, by your lights, to directly quote a radical black theologian is to misrepresent him. If you ever come with an explanation for why this is so, perhaps you should let it be known.
As I have shown by asking you to reveal the context of your cut and paste job, you did not “directly” quote James Cone. Nor have you even revealed the source of that quote.
You can find the quote in this article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/03/black_church/index.html I have no reason to think it inaccurate. Some people credit it to this book: A Black Theology of Liberation. Another online essay credits this secondary source: William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
Do they not have Google up there in Canada?
We do have Google, but you’re the one throwing around quotes out of context so I figure the burden is on you to do the work.
It would do you some good to read the rest of that Slate article if you have not done so already. I’ll quote the parts that reveal the way in which you refuse to see his writing in context, and the way in which you refuse to consider what Cone means when he uses the terms “white”/”whiteness” and “black”/”blackness”:
—–
Can you discuss the meaning of some excerpts from Cone’s writing, such as when he refers to whiteness as a “a symbol of man’s depravity”? Is it fair, in your view, for Cone’s critics to characterize those statements as racist? If not, how would you characterize them and what do they mean?
James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.
Now it is important to remember how culturally loaded the terms “whiteness” and “blackness” are as racial categories. Martin Luther King Jr. argued in his final book, “Where Do We Go From Here?”: “The job of arousing humanity within a people that have been taught for so many centuries that they are nobody is not easy. Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading.”
Cone also said that Malcolm X was “not far wrong” when he called the white man “the devil,” and “if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”
When Cone employed the terms “whiteness” and “blackness” in his theological interpretation of the Gospel narratives according to the lived realities of African-Americans in the American context, he was referring to them not as a physical descriptive category but as a cultural notion and spiritual concepts, [such as] when Cone says that “whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity.” So for Cone to say that Malcolm X was not “far from wrong when he called the white man the devil,” Cone is not talking about white persons as innately evil. He is referring to the “white consciousness,” of which many whites have embraced, which perpetuates white supremacy and power. For Cone, white supremacy is akin to what the New Testament refers to as “principalities and powers.”
When Cone wrote that “if God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him,” for Cone, “white people” signifies the “white consciousness” that is constructed upon black marginalization.
Now it is only fair to say that the black theology of liberation as an academic project cannot be reduced to James Cone. There are many variants and multiple trajectories of thought by an abundance of scholars that build upon, move beyond, critique and expand Cone’s early writings. And, naturally, Cone’s thought has even developed over the course of the past 40 years. Black theology of liberation is not static. As the condition of blacks in America has changed since 1969, so has black theology of liberation.
Both this blog and a lot of others might find it useful to back off from incessantly partisan politics or the “I’m more Catholic than you” controversies, and instead focus on the many aspects of life that are just intellectually interesting.
Amen to that. Maybe after the election cycle we will see more posts on Art, Film, Literature, etc. But….I have a fear that even those will be laced with political overtones.
I grasp that defense, but it seems very odd to me that someone would say that God is against “white people” if he really just meant that God is against “the attitude or propensity towards racial oppression,” which is a description of God that I would accept. If you try to be deliberately shocking by constantly referring to “white people,” you should darn well know that people might think you’re talking about . . . well, “white people.”
S.B. I was surprised to see “white people” in that quote rather than “whiteness” which is his preferred way of putting it. Which is why I asked for the actual source. I’m guess it’s from Black Theology and Black Power or A Black Theology of Liberation, which are his earlier works.
It’s important to keep in mind that Cone is RADICALLY contextual in his theology. He is never making universal pronouncements, but contextual comments. So when he says “if God is not for us and against white people” he is speaking in reference to a particular time and place, as if to say, “If God is not for us — in this context of radical discrimination and violence toward our people — and against white people — the ones doing the oppressing in this time and place…” etc etc. He self-consciously adjusts his theology with every new work because the context is different and because he legitimately responds to criticism.
I suggest that this is the way you should approach Cone’s work, if you truly want to understand what he is doing. He cannot be read abstracted from his context.
How in the world can we delve into the full context of a thinker’s work in the realm of comment boxes? I don’t know Cone, and I can’t state an opinion on him, but I can’t believe the tone and nitpicking that goes on here. Racism is inherently evil, and we have to be honest about it. There is not enough honesty about race and racism in this country, and many parties are guilty of that. Its prophetic to point to this, yes, but I think that the original uproar was caused by the tone of MM’s remarks, which were probably wrong, that there are more people opposed to Obama because of his race then abortion. However, the main problem with his remarks was the snide moral condecension and presumption on his part. I don’t know why he can’t admit to it, but obviously he can’t, but please let’s move on and stop criticizing and pointing out the logical fallacies and errors in each other’s comments. A comment isn’t a thesis. There are bound to be logical errors; its a place for discussion and exchange, not a place to nitpick and point out fallacies and contextual clues, etc.
“Maybe after the election cycle we will see more posts on Art, Film, Literature…”
Such posts happen quite often here; but, people tend not to read them. Perhaps why you didn’t know this.
Henry, I did a search on your entries and do see some very interesting posts. Thanks for putting the thoughtful effort into them. I appreciate posts that are thorough and are putting out ideas for discussion without a completely telegraphed agenda. I believe that Blamires and Postman can teach us as to why such posts get little attention.
I am rather surprised that there was no discussion on the more recent Patrick Birge entries. There was certainly plenty of material there for discussion on some foundational issues regarding Art, Faith, and Vocation/Calling. I promise to pay closer attention!
Premodern
Well, I think there are many reasons why such posts don’t get much attention; one, I admit I write quite a few which are lengthy, and that takes time for people to go through them. Another is many people feel more comfortable with politics than other fields (I am not saying they should, but they do). And finally, some of the subjects might be obscure. I do intend to continue my series on literature (I got started on it, then got asked to teach an undergraduate class this semester, taking away from the time I wanted to put into it). I also am slowly developing an idea for another post on art — one which, I hope, might get more people to respond (although, like you, I would have expected some discussion based upon the videos of Patrick Birge).