News Jeremiah Wright: Why does Mr. Obama support him?

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't checked to see if this came up already, but yesterday CNN played the entire video of Wright's controversial sermon. A surprise to me was that he only "damns" America IF we don't stop doing such and such... I had only seen his statements represented as an imperative and not in the subjunctive mood as it was actually expressed. That makes quite a difference!

 

[Amp1]

Sure does Ivan. Not only that much of what he said about chickens comming home to roost was true.

The US supported and put in power some of the worst dictators. Saddam H., The (former) Shah of Iran, was found GUILTY by the World Court of terrorist activities in Nicuragua.

The CIA's greatest hits - N. Chomsky
Why do people hate America - Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies

are two sources to find out about the chickens.

 

[TVP45]

Mr Jefferson

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Let's not forget why the US&UK put The Shah into power either, it was because the Iranian pm at the time refused to grant favourable oil concessions to the UK and of course the US stood to gain from a favourable deal from a favourable leader.

I really don't see what politics has to do with religion in anything he says? Or according to the religion of The NT what right anyone has to judge in political terms. But to discuss why would be a render unto Caesar moment and that's religion. :/

This guy sounds like another Fred Phelps, maybe not as hard line, but definitely bigoted.

i don't know if i would say that it "was good for Europe" but i must confess that i am not a disinterested party. being a Mennonite and coming from the Anabaptist tradition (and ethnically from the same lines of Germans who are the Pennsylvania "Dutch"), i have distant ancestors who were persecuted to the point of burning at stake and drowning. there was even a case where one anabaptist "heretic" was drowned in a gunney sack tied shut with live (probably stray) cats tossed in the bag. cats were considered evil, too, from the western POV of the time.

Like I say I don't condone religious persecution, but I don't see how the Mennonites really effect politics anyway. Other than by their vote? Bear in mind I did say at least. I'm not condoning anything done in the name of Catholicism or Protestantism in Europe. This is why there's such a division of state and church though. In fact after looking at their beliefs, I think the Mennonites are not in the same league as some of the more evangelistic religions in the US.

I can see why they were controversial though.

* Freedom of religion
* Priesthood of all believers
* Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
* Pacifism

Those are dangerous ideas. Well to Catholics anyway, placing authority in the common folk? Pacifism? Freedom of religion?

 

[Amp1]

Arildno, it doesn't seem to be hate but anger that Wright spewed. I notice how no one rebutted or attempted to argue against the posts I've read that say much of what Wright said is factually correct.

 

[mheslep]

didn't know anyone pandered to these groups and sought their endorsements.

Democratic candidate for President Jesse Jackson attended Farrakhan's Million Man march in '95 'without hesitation' when other's refused to attend.
http://www.time.com/time/special/million/1023time.html

[Rep] Gary Franks won't be going. He feels that Farrakhan's rhetoric is just as offensive to some whites as the Ku Klux Klan is to African-Americans. "The Ku Klux Klan hates blacks, Jews, and Catholics," Franks said. "The Nation of Islam hates whites, Jews and Catholics."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/

With regards the whack job Wycoff on the video clip (equating homosexuality w/ murder), I wasn't aware anyone pandered to him either. As far as I can see the only common cause between the Republicans and the Moral Majority group is on abortion.

 

[mheslep]

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?

Grad school

 

[Amp1]

Arildno, I'm assuming your not a christian. However if you are, what type of people did Jesus associate with... and in what way did his associating with them disuade him from his message or cause him to exhibit their behavior.

 

[mheslep]

...Might have something to do with us being staunchly and defiantly secular, for some very good reasons. It's called European history.

Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes I am aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes I am aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

Did you know when the Knights of the first crusades asked if killing was wrong, as it was according to The Bible. He came back and said it's fine if it's infidels? I mean how scary is that? Killing in the name of? A pacifistic religion?

That's exactly what I meant, The 30 years war, the division of church that lead to both Catholic and Protestant persecution. The corruption and greed and politicisation of the Church, indulgences, the fact that priests were made celibate in the middle ages to protect the churches wealth from being passed to family members on their death, persecutions of Jews and Heretics. That's why we are now secular; religion and politics.

He's on the payroll because he works for a living? Is that wrong? he is not a representative though, his views do not pass parliament, and his views in the Lords are outvoted or ignored. So he has no power, no ability to affect policy, he might say ESCR is wrong, but no one is going to listen to him, unlike in the US, where you have to pander to the religious conservatives.

 

[Art]

Schrodinger's Dog for someone who lives there you have a very strange perception of the role of religion in the UK.

Not so long ago, and probably still happening in some places, councils ran by Presbyterians chained up the swings in kids' playgrounds every Sunday to ensure the Sabbath was adhered to and Sunday trading laws are still a major bone of contention.

On a national level although religion plays a smaller role in the Labour Party it is still a big deal with Conservatives and Parliament still begins each day with a prayer.

The UK is not secular! In legal terms the UK is a Protestant Christian state with the Anglican church being the established religion of England and Wales one consequence of which is Britain is the only country left in the democratic world that allows clerics to sit in its legislature as of right and another consequence being it is the established Protestant religion which is compulsorily taught in state schools.

The UK only voted to repeal blasphemy laws in March of this year although this has yet to be ratified (blasphemy laws which btw were restricted to statements against the established Protestant religion only)

This only passed because religious adherents including the C of E believed it's content was captured in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 rendering it obsolete.

The US populace no doubt take their religion more seriously than their UK counterparts which is then obviously reflected in the stated views of politicians but to suggest the UK's political ambivalence to religion is due to clever deliberate secularisation by the UK government is totally misleading. It is purely down to the personal apathy of UK citizens.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Art do you live in the UK? Do you realize how secular we are? Tradition may still be tradition but it affects politics little. A recent poll showed that belief in a God or gods had gone from 79% in the 1960's to 49% and that includes all faiths. We are more secular than ever and sliding further that way. You may begin parliament with a prayer but that has nothing to do with the way parliament runs, and all to do with an outdated tradition.

Can you tell me the last time blasphemy laws were enforced? They are redundant under new laws as you say, they don't need repeal to be frank, apart from to clear out dead wood. It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow when he ventures across the border of a weekend. Doesn't mean it's a particularly enforcible law.

It's not down to apathy it's down to the increasing secularisation of Europe. I never said it was deliberate, but in a democracy if no one cares about religious issues, and when they are raised they are mocked then apathy is a secular fault, so be it.

 

[Art]

Art do you live in the UK? Do you realize how secular we are? Tradition may still be tradition but it affects politics little. A recent poll showed that belief in a God or gods had gone from 79% in the 1960's to 49% and that includes all faiths. We are more secular than ever and sliding further that way. You may begin parliament with a prayer but that has nothing to do with the way parliament runs, and all to do with an outdated tradition.

Can you tell me the last time blasphemy laws were enforced? They are redundant under new laws as you say, they don't need repeal to be frank, apart from to clear out dead wood. It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow when he ventures across the border of a weekend. Doesn't mean it's a particularly enforcible law.

It's not down to apathy it's down to the increasing secularisation of Europe. I never said it was deliberate, but in a democracy if no one cares about religious issues, and when they are raised they are mocked then apathy is a secular fault, so be it.

I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days? All mandated by the government.

The statistics you cite simply serve to affirm my contention that it is the British publics apathy to religion which diminishes it's influence on the political scene but it is certainly not through secular legislation.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days?

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.

 

[Art]

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.

Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.

 

[Art]

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.

You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past. And that one person will not dictate policy of Anglicanism, no matter how powerful. There are gay Vicars and lesbian vicars, and female vicars. He doesn't define the Churches opinion he's as subject to ecumenical concerns as anyone else who is the leader of a religion. Despite being liberal on gay issues before he came to power, he still has to avoid schism.

 

[Art]

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past.

The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics today through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus whilst you blindly ignore the overt influence of religion in areas of the UK and it's dominions such as Scotland and NI.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus.

Compared to the US, I think not. They might pander to voters, but policies are still decisively secular, and of course they only have to pander to a tiny, tiny minority of right wing conservative Christians, such as evangelists, particularly labour who aren't traditionally pro church anyway.

Let's ask an American if they think US policy is affected by religion? Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?

 

[Art]

Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?

Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there?

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.

 

[Art]

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.

So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realized what a right wing nut she was.

 

[Art]

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realized what a right wing nut she was.

SD no offense but are you really from the UK? Thatcher wasn't dumped by the electorate! Just like Blair she was dumped by her own party in a palace coup. IMO If the Tory party hadn't stabbed her in the back for not being right wing enough she'd still be PM. The British public loved her and many still do.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

SD no offense but are you really from the UK? Thatcher wasn't dumped by the electorate! Just like Blair she was dumped by her own party in a palace coup. IMO If the Tory party hadn't stabbed her in the back for not being right wing enough she'd still be PM. The British public loved her and many still do.

Are you? I didn't say she was, she would have been thus John Major. I suppose you're a Thatcherite then? Or are you from the UK at all. Or are you one of those people that wasn't born in the Thatcher years and didn't have to live through the riots, the distinct distaste for her policies, that now sees her through rose tinted spectacles? I was a conservative in the 80's until about 1988, then I became liberal and you can blame that right wing witch for that, nutcase who brought the country out of the gutter, then proceeded to throw it right back in again. All that was right with right wing politics and all that was wrong in one person.

 

[Art]

I'd be happy to discuss UK politics with you if you so wish.

If they are reading this perhaps one of the mentors would carve the last few posts off into a separate thread.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'd be happy to discuss UK politics with you if you so wish.

If they are reading this perhaps one of the mentors would carve the last few posts off into a separate thread.

Me too but are you talking it or did you live it first hand, because these days, the Daily Mail readers have got it all out perspective? How old are you?

New thread needed start it yourself, I suggest, apologies for the threadjack.

Thatcher milk snatcher. Is there noting that woman wouldn't do to advance her greed is good idealism? Silly mare.

 

[Art]

Me too but are you talking it or did you live it first hand, because these days, the Daily Mail readers have got it all out perspective? How old are you?

It was after Thatcher got elected I voted with my feet and left the UK .

Thatcher milk snatcher. Is there noting that woman wouldn't do to advance her greed is good idealism? Silly mare

She did that when she was minister for education in the 70's under Heath and yet you still joined the conservative party in 1980 after she'd become leader. Shame on you

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It was after Thatcher got elected I voted with my feet and left the UK .

Good for you, you got out while the going was still good, I presume?

She did that when she was minister for education in the 70's under Heath and yet you still joined the conservative party in 1980 after she'd become leader. Shame on you

I was 8 years old give me a break. We all make errors in our youth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rev Wright was on Bill Moyers Journal tonight
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

 

[Amp1]

I saw it. He was very eloquent and lucid. The sound bites I was suprised to learn were from sermons that occurred shortly after 9/11 and 7, 10, and 15 years ago. They were almost totally re-contexted and misrepresented by the particular media companies that tried to blow it up.

The entirety of Rev. Wright's so called diatribes were enlightening to all those people who perhaps still believe there was WMDs in Iraq or that the US is squeaky clean. From the metaphors to the comparisons Wright used, he was dead on point about the relationship to things like terrorism, oppression, and disregard for humanitarian values that the "failed nations" realized, instituted or supported.

The point that a US ambassador made, whom he named in the sermon, "Americas chickens have come home to roost" is basic karma, even biblical - 'what goes around comes around' and 'you reap what you sow'. It happens to be true.

The man's words will still be twisted even though his rebuttal refuted all the negative claims made on him. And the prodigious humanitarian work he and his church have been and are performing is incredible in the face of the obstacles they deal with.

 

[Amp1]

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2008/4/26/13582/1350

Great link for summary and thoughts.

 

[chemisttree]

I saw it. He was very eloquent and lucid. The sound bites I was suprised to learn were from sermons that occurred shortly after 9/11 and 7, 10, and 15 years ago. They were almost totally re-contexted and misrepresented by the particular media companies that tried to blow it up.

That couldn't be further from the truth. You obviously haven't seen any of the original sermons. See them http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352661,00.html". (if you dare)

The entirety of Rev. Wright's so called diatribes were enlightening to all those people who perhaps still believe there was WMDs in Iraq or that the US is squeaky clean. From the metaphors to the comparisons Wright used, he was dead on point about the relationship to things like terrorism, oppression, and disregard for humanitarian values that the "failed nations" realized, instituted or supported.

The point that a US ambassador made, whom he named in the sermon, "Americas chickens have come home to roost" is basic karma, even biblical - 'what goes around comes around' and 'you reap what you sow'. It happens to be true.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the US for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia (at their request) to protect them from imminent invasion by Iraq, not for Hiroshima, Nagasaki or for "bashing the heads of babies against rocks" as Pastor Wright puts it. There is no doubt that THIS MAN HATES AMERICA. His sermons are pure political garbage (especially when viewed in their entirety) backed by his own flawed intrepretation of scripture. He chastises America for it's economic interests and power but somehow finds within the scripture of the New Testament justification for that repulsive attitude.

Compare that attitude with:

"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his (Jesus') talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Master, we know that thour art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men."
"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Show me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny.
And he sayeth unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?"
They say unto him, "Caesar's"; then sayeth he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:15-21)

I think the good Pastor has forgotten that bit.

The man's words will still be twisted even though his rebuttal refuted all the negative claims made on him. And the prodigious humanitarian work he and his church have been and are performing is incredible in the face of the obstacles they deal with.

No twisting required. Wright is as twisted as they come.

 

[Art]

What has the Rev Wright said that is factually wrong??

Is there a white upper class predominant in America?
Is there still racism in America?
Did Al-Qaeda attack America because of it's ME policies?

It's seems nobody can refute what he said they are just teed off that he had the temerity to say it.

 

[drankin]

What has the Rev Wright said that is factually wrong??

Is there a white upper class predominant in America?
Is there still racism in America?
Did Al-Qaeda attack America because of it's ME policies?

It's seems nobody can refute what he said they are just teed off that he had the temerity to say it.

I heard about this speech. I heard that he had said that black human brains and white human brains are different and this is why blacks have trouble in school. Now, that is straight up racism. Yes, there is racism in America and Wright is one of the reasons it continues. White supremists say the same damn thing. He is promoting continued racism.

 

[mheslep]

What has the Rev Wright said that is factually wrong??
...
It's seems nobody can refute what he said they are just teed off that he had the temerity to say it.

April 13, 2003, J. Wright:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright’s-“god-damn-america”-sermon/

Here's some more ugliness from Wright, same sermon:

For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat at the Masters, with his Cablanasian hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women, God has this way of brining you up short when you get to big for your Cablanasian britches.

 

[W3pcq]

According to Farrakhan's mentor, Elijah Muhammad, blacks were "born righteous and turned to unrighteousness," while the white race was "made unrighteous by the god who made them (Mr. Yacub)."}

{In response to the charges of being a "Black Hitler", Farrakhan responded during a March 11, 1984 speech broadcast on a Chicago radio station:
"So I said to the members of the press, 'Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers." [23]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

This is the man Wright praises.

 

[Esoteric]

I heard about this speech. I heard that he had said that black human brains and white human brains are different and this is why blacks have trouble in school. Now, that is straight up racism. Yes, there is racism in America and Wright is one of the reasons it continues. White supremists say the same damn thing. He is promoting continued racism.

He was talking about learning styles, which are proclivities...not genetic habits, etched in stone. Nobody said Black people can't function in a linear-logical, Cartesian sense, only that our cultures tend to approach objective realities from a different slant. Also, that no value judgments should be attached to either approach.

What Wright has said here is nothing new, though it's been fought furiously by accommodationist Blacks for over half a century. He wasn't being Manichaean, only describing a theory for the affective slant of African education.

 

[Gokul43201]

...flawed intrepretation of scripture...

That, sir, if you ask me, is a doozy!

PS: On a different note, the words of another person, one who has been praised by millions of people:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

-Abe Lincoln

 

[russ_watters]

He was talking about learning styles, which are proclivities...not genetic habits, etched in stone. Nobody said Black people can't function in a linear-logical, Cartesian sense, only that our cultures tend to approach objective realities from a different slant.

Wright doesn't appear to understand or be making that distinction. He does mention objects hung above a crib, which implies genetic differences (too early to get culture). But in any case, it's a moot point: the "white" way of learning has been proven to work. The "black" way doesn't actually exist and never has. If I were a black parent raising a child today, I would want to educate that child in a way that exists and is known to work, not try to 'fight the system'. It is the fighting against reality, more than anything else, that creates the divisions and puts blacks below whites in the US.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Not to mention that it's not just whites that use "the white system", but Asians, Latinos, Hindus, Persians, Arabs, whatever. All over the world. Blacks use it everywhere, too.

 

[BobG]

I would say that Wright tends to say some fairly astute things, but also can't help himself in going over the deep end with some of his comments. You can easily find quotes that defend him and condemn him.

Bottom line is that he's a loose cannon that sees the current controversy as an opportunity to focus attention on himself. His affect on the Obama campaign is barely even a consideration to him. His actions and comments are completely separate from Obama's now.

Unfortunately, that's not how things are perceived. In the public's view, the two are associated with each other. Wright is starting to look like the disaster that just keeps on giving. This goes on too long or gets too big and the superdelegates just might become a realistic hope for Clinton.

 

[Amp1]

What Bob G says is true because you see it happening. I think Wright is showing Obama in much the same way as the 187^th post asserts he did Tiger. Chemistree, I hope that what I saw on PBS channel 13 on Mr. Moyer's program was the whole sermon otherwise it was misrepresented (eek) ... too.

Unfortunately, the scriptures do hold against the kinda 'failed nations' Mr. Wright was talking about. BTW, a distinguished scholar named Noam Chomsky wrote a book called 'Failed State' in which the USA figures prominently. Since he researched his subject so thoroughly, I give credence to his statements in the book about the US. The fact that the US was FOUND GUILTY of terrorism against Nicaragua by the World Court factors heavily in that knowledge.

I believe that Obama or Clinton should use Rev. Wrights thoughts and spoken statements to discuss ways that they would move the US away from unprovoked intimidation and coercion towards cooperation and a consciousness of our place as a part of the total synergism of this planets life forms.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems to me that there are a few ironies here. First of all, the irony of a black liberation theologian going out of his way to damage the first serious black contender for President is mind boggling! And that is what happened yesterday. Wright was out to pay back Obama for denouncing him.

But here is the thing that strikes me about Wright's message: Wright has a message of anger that once acted as glue for the black community. Blacks WERE slaves in this country not that long ago, and racism has been a fact of the American culture ever since. Wright lived in a time when black people were hanged just for being black. He saw the water hoses and dogs turned on a crowd of innocent civilians just because they were black. He lived during a time when a black man was called "boy", and told to mind his place. He lived during a time when in many ways a black man was still 3/5 of a man. It is easy to understand how a man who lived through these times can cling to anger. In a sense, it is probably all that he has ever known.

Whereas blacks have been viewing this as an opportunity to engage the white community and to help whites understand the black culture, in fact it seems to me that the real lesson is for blacks. Black liberation theology had a place in 1965, but we have moved beyond that now. It is time for blacks to reject this rhetorical nonsense and move on as well. Whites will not learn to understand this sort of anger and bitterness because most whites living today had nothing to do with it. We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers.

Until Wright and other like him figure this out, THEY will be the force that keeps the injustices of 1965 alive and well. Wright is an anchor to hatred, not a liberator.

 

[drankin]

It seems to me that there are a few ironies here. First of all, the irony of a black liberation theologian going out of his way to damage the first serious black contender for President is mind boggling! And that is what happened yesterday. Wright was out to pay back Obama for denouncing him.

But here is the thing that strikes me about Wright's message: Wright has a message of anger that once acted as glue for the black community. Blacks WERE slaves in this country not that long ago, and racism has been a fact of the American culture ever since. Wright lived in a time when black people were hanged just for being black. He saw the water hoses and dogs turned on a crowd of innocent civilians just because they were black. He lived during a time when a black man was called "boy", and told to mind his place. He lived during a time when in many ways a black man was still 3/5 of a man. It is easy to understand how a man who lived through these times can cling to anger. In a sense, it is probably all that he has ever known.

Whereas blacks have been viewing this as an opportunity to engage the white community and to help whites understand the black culture, in fact it seems to me that the real lesson is for blacks. Black liberation theology had a place in 1965, but we have moved beyond that now. It is time for blacks to reject this rhetorical nonsense and move on as well. Whites will not learn to understand this sort of anger and bitterness because most whites living today had nothing to do with it. We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers.

Until Wright and other like him figure this out, THEY will be the force that keeps the injustices of 1965 alive and well. Wright is an anchor to hatred, not a liberator.

Well put, I agree completely. It's folks like him that want to keep that crap alive. Make white people uncomfortable about any racial distinction while people like Wright try to maintain a white vs black battle which is only a few generations from being complete history. He is not a true man of faith, IMO. His platform is his race and victimization.

 

[W3pcq]

I can see that making the distinction between black and white, and arguing that blacks are being oppressed by white america, may be a strong motivation for a black person to get involved, get educated, so that a change can be made. Him damaging Obama so badly, shows his goals are however a further division and rise of the black power movement. If Obama gets elected, how can Wright he profit off of the idea that America is an evil white country. The only goal I can see Wright having, is a revolution. Wrights idea of change is revolution, and destruction of the current system, and the white people in charge of it. How can this be carried out when a Black person is in charge of it? I think Wright and Farrakahn as well as the radical islamic sects in other places are communicating, and building up for a revolution against the white race, and against America.

Although I know that Obama does not think this way. The problem is that Wright has been Obamas close friend and advisor for 20 years. Maybe part of Obama's motivation and drive is due to Wrights speech. Obama now closer than ever to have the power to change the way things work, the power to elevate the black community, the power to end the "US supported terrorism of Irael", all the things that he has learned are wrong with America from listening to rev. Wright. The problem is that Wright profits from the bad doings of our government because he and Farrakahn can use it to recruit their army, and can profit from bad mouthing it. Obama actually wants things to improve, and is smart enough to know how to do it.

I feel sorry for Obama. I'm sure he joined the church based on the good it was supposedly committing to fight for justice and to help black people become successful in America. I respect this, and I am all for it. I am sure that as a black man, and a member of the African American community, it would be hard to disown a church that is fighting for their cause, especially with a history of oppression and feelings of current wrongdoings occurring today. It is just sad that these leaders of Black Power are not after change in the gov, they are after change of gov, as in revolution and overthrow.

 

[TVP45]

You know, it seems to me there's too much emphasis placed on Rev. Wright's influence on Sen. Obama. The pastor of the church I belong to regularly preaches sermons on sheep (who knows why his obsession) and he regularly tells how sheep drown in the rain or if they enter a body of water. I roll my eyes and read the hymnal or look at Cynthia's Carmen Miranda hat instead. Half the people in most churches couldn't tell you what a sermon was about by Tuesday if their life depended on it. I doubt Sen. Obama is much different.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I feel sorry for Obama.

It strikes me that this may be what saves him, if anything can. Wright was so over-the-top yesterday that that Obama may start to appear more a victim of a friend gone looney than someone to be feared.

A couple of points though: First, Wright was his pastor. Now, I had priests who baptized me, gave first communion, and who mentored me in spiritual matters. I was confirmed by Cardinal Mahoney who at that time I viewed as a SuperMentor, if you will, but in no way would I want them to speak for me. They were one aspect of one chapter of my life. In no way would I consider them to be close friends or even like-minded. I don't know how close Obama and Wright really were, but to say that he was Obama's pastor and mentor doesn't define the true nature of their relationship. Wright and Obama may be no closer than I am to good ole Father whatshisname.

Next, you need to support your comments about Wright's intentions to start a revolution. Conspiracy theories are not allowed, and you need to provide specific evidence to that effect, such as a transcript in which he calls for a literal revolution.

As Wright pointed out, before you question his patriotism, note that he served six years in the military. How many years did Cheney serve?

 

[W3pcq]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It is just the impression I got from him. The way he keeps saying "there is going to be a change" angrily after he talks about the evils of America. The way he acts as though, that he cares not whether Obama gets elected. Then he says of "I told Obama, you get elected, than I'm going after you". His connection with Lois Farrakahn, Louis Farrakahn provided his security. What kind of change is he after? Why are these issues being preached in a church?

I understand in a way why a person like him may feel the way he does about U.S. policy, especially considering how bad Bush's terms have been. I understand his points about terrorism in a way. The rule is generally, the winners write the history books, and the losers are the terrorists. THis doesn't however change the fact that we are at war with the "terrorists". That doesn't change the fact that he is aligned against America in this war. I know that those against America may have many good reasons to be in many cases. "The world trade center" has screwed a lot of people over. Many policies have left people much worse off. Of coarse we are going to have enemies in these cases. The fact still remains, will the American people turn against their own country to fight for the causes of its enemies against America? Perfectly acceptable within the system, how Obama will go about it, and to be a peacemaker, and to make resolutions.