PDA

View Full Version : What did Obama hear, and when did he hear it?



Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 02:10 PM
I'm surpirsed no one has raised the issue yet...


The Wright Questions
What did Obama hear, and when did he hear it?

By Peter Wehner

A few thoughts on the widely played excerpts from the sermons of Barack Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago:

1. This is the worst crisis the Obama campaign has faced. It has done deep and perhaps long-term damage by calling into question the judgment and credibility of the junior senator from Illinois. And it badly undermines Obama’s claim that he is a figure who can bind up America’s racial wounds.

2. Senator Obama, whose campaign only last year said that he was “proud of his pastor and his church,” is now saying that he wasn’t aware of the angry, reckless, anti-American, and racially divisive comments by Reverend Wright. But that claim stretches credulity. Reverend Wright, after all, is not a stranger who is offering up a presidential-year endorsement. Wright has instead played a pivotal role in Obama’s life — including marrying Barack and Michelle Obama, baptizing their two children, and inspiring the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope.

Senator Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since the early 1990s. Are we supposed to believe that the kind of venom and vivid hatred that we have all seen on display — that God should damn rather than bless America, that this country created AIDS in an effort to foster genocide, that we had 9/11 coming to us, that America is the “U.S. of K.K.K.A.” and that Israel is a terrorist state — is an anomaly for Wright? That the overwhelming majority of his sermons are expositions on the love of Christ and the need to break down the dividing walls between us? That Obama was utterly shocked to see Wright’s words strung together on cable TV? That he has seen a side of Wright in the last week that he never knew existed?

This is a pastor, after all, who traveled to Libya in 1984 to visit Muammar Qadhafi with Louis Farrakhan and presented a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan only last year, calling the Nation of Islam leader a man of “integrity and honesty” and referring to him as “one of the 20th and 21st century greats of the African-American religious experience.”

The odds are a good deal better than even that Wright’s hatred is on regular or semi-regular display at the pulpit of Trinity United. The question now becomes: What did Senator Obama hear, and when did he hear it?

3. Reverend Wright’s toxic comments may help us better understand the remarks by Michelle Obama that she is proud of America for the first time in her adult life only now that her husband is running for president and that she considers America to be a “outright mean” nation.

If someone admires Reverend Wright as much as Michelle Obama seems to — and she has spoken very well of him in the past — then it’s reasonable to assume that they share some common values. People who attend the same church for a quarter century often share key attitudes and outlooks of their minister. That’s not always the case — but it’s more often the case than not. And it is very rare that people who attend a church for more than 25 years hold views that are fundamentally at odds with their pastor.

It sounds like clashing cymbals to hear Obama’s rhetoric — at once calm, reasonable, and unifying — and then to hear the comments of two people who play among the most important roles in his life: his wife and his minister. People are right to wonder: What the heck is going on here? Did Obama embrace Wright and his church in an effort to gain legitimacy during his Chicago years — and now wants to jettison Wright and his church in an effort to gain legitimacy during his run for the White House?

4. Senator Obama and some of his supporters have made the plea that he not be made “guilty by association.” What people are asking for is not guilt but responsibility by association — especially an association this long, this deep, this important.

And on the matter of “guilt by association,” here’s a thought experiment. Assume that the spiritual leader and pastor of the church George W. Bush or John McCain attended was, say, a white supremacist or an anti-gay bigot. Do you think that there would be any hesitancy among the press to push the “guilt by association” storyline? I rather doubt it.

I ask because on Thursday CNN’s Anderson Cooper and some of his commentators were visibly unhappy that they were forced to spend valuable time talking about the Wright issue rather than, say, health care or education policy. Anderson and the others clearly viewed it as distasteful and a distraction from a full airing of policy issues. (To Cooper’s credit, by Friday he had changed his tune and was making the case for why the story was relevant.)

5. We actually have an example of how the MSM plays the “guilt by association” card when it comes to certain political and religious figures. In the 2000 campaign George W. Bush spoke once at Bob Jones University; it was an event used to bludgeon Bush with for the rest of the campaign and into his presidency. And, of course, Bush did not attend Bob Jones University, financially support it, or consider Bob Jones to be his spiritual mentor or close friend for 25 years. Yet these things mattered not at all. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University — and so to many in the press, he was joined at the hip with it. The association between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama is far deeper in every respect.

Until now Barack Obama has run a remarkable campaign and has shown himself to be a man of apparent grace and class, an apostle of hope and unity. But recent events are starting to eat away at the image of Obama. Nothing has done more damage to him, however, than the comments of his pastor Jeremiah Wright. What Obama has said by way of explanation is neither reassuring nor persuasive — and before this story plays itself out, much more damage to the reputation of Barack Obama may be done.

The words of Jeremiah Wright are acidic — both in their own right and in what they are doing to the Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. For his next sermon Reverend Wright might consider meditating on the words of James: “the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.” To these words Senator Obama may simply say, Amen.

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 02:15 PM
Some more, this topic is bubbling to the surface


Uncle Jeremiah
Barack Obama and his cookie-cutter race huckster.

By Mark Steyn

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright thinks that, given their treatment by white America, black Americans have no reason to sing “God Bless America.” “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America,” he told his congregation. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

I’m not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate disassociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip’n’greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama’s life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator’s last book, The Audacity of Hope,and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Reverend Wright’s sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years — in other words, pretty much the senator’s entire adult life. Did Obama consider God Damn America as a title for his book but it didn’t focus-group so well?

Ah, well, no, the senator told ABC News. The Reverend Wright is like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on September 16th 2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. “We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” said the Reverend Wright. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.”

Is that one of those “things I don’t always agree with”? Well, Senator Obama isn’t saying, responding merely that he wasn’t in church that morning. Okay, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on September 16th? Cried “Shame on you!” and stormed out? Or, if that’s a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn’t want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?

All Senator Obama will say is that “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” And in that he may be correct. There are many preachers who would be happy to tell their congregations “God damn America.” But Barack Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race, the candidate who doesn’t damn America but “heals” it — if you believe, as many Democrats do, that America needs healing.

Yet since his early twenties he’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster.

What is Barack Obama for? It’s not his “policies,” such as they are. Rather, Senator Obama embodies an idea: He’s a symbol of redemption and renewal, and a lot of other airy-fairy abstractions that don’t boil down to much except making upscale white liberals feel good about themselves and get even more of a frisson out of white liberal guilt than they usually do. I assume that’s what Geraldine Ferraro was getting at when she said Obama wouldn’t be where he was today (i.e., leading the race for the Democratic nomination) if he was white. For her infelicity, the first woman on a presidential ticket got bounced from the Clinton campaign and denounced by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann for her “insidious racism” indistinguishable from “the vocabulary of David Duke.”

Oh, for cryin’ out loud. Enjoyable as it is to watch previously expert wielders of identity-politics hand-grenades blow their own fingers off, if Geraldine Ferraro’s an “insidious racist,” who isn’t?



The song the Reverend Wright won’t sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment “God Bless America.” He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly — in seven words:


God Bless America
Land that I love.
Berlin was a Jew and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York’s Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village) and he understood the great gift he’d been given:


God Bless America
Land that I love.
The Reverend Wright can’t say those words. His shtick is:


God damn America
Land that I loathe.
I understand the Ellis Island experience of Russian Jews was denied to blacks. But not to Obama. His experience surely isn’t so different to Berlin’s — except that Barack got to go to Harvard. Obama’s father was a Kenyan, he spent his childhood in Indonesia, and he ought to thank his lucky stars that he’s running for office in Washington rather than Nairobi or Jakarta. Instead, his whiney wife Michelle says that her husband’s election as president would be the first reason to have “pride” in America, and complains that this country is “downright mean” and that she’s having difficulty finding money for their daughters’ piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from The Audacity of Hype), but they’re whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand — or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.

God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The “racist” here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Reverend Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.


God Bless America
Land that I love.
Take it away, Michelle.

HisLeast
Mar 17th 2008, 02:37 PM
I've been pretty shocked at the reaction to this. What I'm hearing frequently amounts to this: "You can't judge him based off something his pastor says".

Well... no, I can't hold him accountable for his Pastor's wrongs. But I can make inferences into his beliefs and character by observing those he has close associations with. Its like people have spontaneously forgotten that we OFTEN base our opinions of someone based on their associations. If I know a guy who hangs out with a bunch of pot-heads... safe bet he tokes once in a while, right?

Whats more sad is the passion of the double standard. People are so desperate to pin their woes to the exiting administration (and the affiliated party) that they shut off their ability to think objectively about possible replacements. And I can only imagine the uproar if people found out McCain was a member of the Westborro Baptist Church. People would be frothing at the mouth!

watchinginawe
Mar 17th 2008, 02:43 PM
In the Fox News interview (Friday?), Barrack painted himself in a pretty small box saying that if he had heard that kind of rhetoric he would have quit going to the Church.

I suppose it is a matter of time before he admits to having been present for some of the more fiery sermons and just go back to the "old uncle" explanation. Maybe he will actually have to quit the Church. (I actually think that would be too far to take this.)

What did you think of the Fox News interview? I thought Barrack did as poorly as I have ever seen him. Major Garrett, with his questions regarding attendance, who married him and Michelle, the baptisms of their children, went a long way to showing that Barrack was completely immersed in the Church. How could Barrack not have known or not have heard the statements until they made the round on news channels last week? (From the transcript (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338433,00.html) of the interview, bolding for emphasis):

OBAMA: Well, Major, I've got to confess that, you know, as you know, I was voting in the Senate all day yesterday. So I wasn't following this story as carefully as I could have been. And then I flew back to Chicago.
When I saw these statements, many of which I had heard for the first time, then I thought it was important to make a very clear and unequivocal statement.
None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews. One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president, and I put out a statement at that time condemning them.
The other statements were ones that that I just heard about while we were — when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren't things that I was familiar with.
...(skipping ahead)
GARRETT: So, quick yes or no. If had you heard them in person you would have quit?
OBAMA: If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. I mean, obviously, understand that — understand that, you know, this is somebody who is like an uncle to me. He's somebody who helped me find Christ. And somebody who always talked to me in very powerful ways about relationship to God and our obligations to the poor.
If somebody makes a mistake, then obviously, you recognize — I make mistakes. We all make mistakes. If I thought that that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn't feel comfortable there.
But, frankly, that has not been my experience at Trinity United Church of Christ.Anyway, the whole interview can be viewed here (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?031408/031408_hc_obama&Hannity_Colmes&Interview%3A%20Barack%20Obama&acc&Hannity%20%26%20Colmes&-1&Shows&451&&&new).

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 03:52 PM
“The forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again.”



Victor Davis Hanson





Today a news item reported on Sen. Obama’s recent take on the current status of education:

“He said schools should do a better job of teaching all students African-American history "because that's part of American history," as well as women's struggle for equality, the history of unions, the role of Hispanics in U.S. and other matters that he suggested aren't given enough attention.”

"I want us to have a broad-based history" taught in schools, he said, even including more on "the Holocaust as well as other issues of oppression" around the world.”

But anyone familiar with the historical illiteracy of today’s college student understands that more of the “oppression” history that Sen. Obama is advocating is precisely the problem, not the solution. Our high school students already know who Harriet Tubman is, but not U.S. Grant or Shiloh. They have been introduced to Crispus Attucks, but not Alexander Hamilton. They know World War II largely as the Japanese internment and Hiroshima (cf. Reverend Wright on that), but have not a clue about the Bulge or Okinawa or the Munich travesty.

In other words, it is precisely this pick-and-choose therapeutic curriculum of "oppression" history presented as a melodrama of winners (white male Christian capitalists) and losers (women, people of color, the working classes) that has ensured an entire generation of historical illiterates, who can’t distinguish between the profound and trivial, or identify basic names, dates, and places to ground even their politically-correct views. They are told to remember and repeat that Hiroshima is bad, but not why or how it occurred, what were the alternatives, and what were the consequences in a war of bad and worse choices.


Instead the sins innate to mankind—war, oppression, slavery, bias, etc.—are nearly always presented as sins unique to the West in general, or to America in particular. We hear always of commission, never of the remediation, always of our terrible past, never of the pretty awful present that goes on outside the United States.


What we need from a healer at this late date is not advocacy for more gripe-history that tries to portion out equal victim status to various competing constituencies under the guise of multicultural brotherhood, but rather tries, in holistic and inclusive fashion, to explain both the noble and tragic history of the United States, an experiment that was and is not perfect, but still very good and preferable to all the alternatives.

What continues to be so disturbing about the Obama rhetoric is that in the abstract he always talks of utopian brotherhood and idealism, but whenever he devolves into the concrete, we learn that he promotes victimhood, identity politics, and subsidizes both by his presence and his purse racial intolerance and invective.


More disturbing still is that even to mention this disturbing contradiction is to incur the charge of being racist, or—in Obama’s own self-serving formulation—to confess that “the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again.”

th1bill
Mar 17th 2008, 04:07 PM
Not being at all large on either of the Democrats in this campaign I knew not of this at all, thank you.

theabaud
Mar 17th 2008, 04:10 PM
Attached are two blog links (trans. Heavily biased) that show that Obama was definately present when these remarks were made. One of them is recorded in Obama's first book. I can buy that Obama was just naive about this with the comments in his book, but his confirmed presence at a hate filled sermon proves he is lying about this.

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-agrees-with-reverend.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzUyZDAyMzBjMTAxMmI5NTI2OWU2NmE3OWY5YjYxMjQ=

watchinginawe
Mar 17th 2008, 04:17 PM
Attached are two blog links (trans. Heavily biased) that show that Obama was definately present when these remarks were made.Barrack Obama will likely have to take his first real mulligan of the campaign on this issue.

Anyone know how many mulligans allowed for this years election? :dunno:

Clifton
Mar 17th 2008, 04:24 PM
Not being at all large on either of the Democrats in this campaign I knew not of this at all, thank you.


Consider yourself fortunate.

Fenris
Mar 17th 2008, 05:23 PM
Some Scholar



Victor Davis Hanson


One of the strangest defenses of Rev. Wright by Sen. Obama was his repeated assurance that Wright is a biblical "scholar."

But Wright's own sermons surely belie that characterization: he uses the "n-word," resorts to profanity, and when screaming that Clinton was "ridin' dirty" with Monica, he seems from the tape at least, to be shaking and trying to simulate sexual intercourse from the pulpit.

Justice Thomas seems to be referred to as "Clarence Colon" and Sec. Rice is "Condamnesia." All this is crude and uncouth, and not even the eloquent Obama could finesse it into anything scholarly. This entire defense is simply Orwellian—especially since Obama's past references to and praise of Wright in interviews and memoirs, as well as 20-years of church attendance and intimacy,suggest admiration and clear knowledge of the character of Wright.


If anything, Wright seems to have trumped even the hatred of Farrakhan.

The raw venom expressed by Wright, and Obama's ambiguity about him, may well be the most bizarre development in recent American political history. It is as if he and his entire campaign staff have collectively lost their minds with these serial contortions and half-truths, and are trying to lose Pennsylvania by 30 points—when all Obama would have to do is apologize, quit the church, and begin talking about the issues (albeit holding off for a while from the old sermons about transcending race, and practicing a new candor and political honesty.)


Any middle-of-the-road Democratic voter who sampled five or six of Wright's sermons, juxtaposed them with Obama's references to him as not particularly controversial, an uncle, a scholar, etc., wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 11:48 AM
I notice that Obama supporters are ignoring this thread like the proverbial plague.

C'mon guys, tell us why we're wrong! Let's see some spirited defense of Obama here.

Because if you can't do it, and he won't do it, he's going to get his clock cleaned come November.

FoG
Mar 18th 2008, 12:54 PM
I have heard some of the arguments that are going for Obama in this. Arguments such as we have only heard 30 or 40 second clips from sermons (how much do we need to hear to figure out his point) and how John Hagee supports McCain and that just because Wright is his pastor doesn't mean he believes like him. Maybe there are better explanations on here because the ones I have heard are just plain ridiculous.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 01:28 PM
I have heard some of the arguments that are going for Obama in this. Arguments such as we have only heard 30 or 40 second clips from sermons (how much do we need to hear to figure out his point)
Fine. Then let the pastor produce all of his sermons, with the complete text. Then let us come to a conclusion.

Or would that be even more damning?


and how John Hagee supports McCain
Hagee didn't marry McCain and baptize his kids, and he isn't on any of McCains committees. McCain hasn't gone to his church for 10 years and donate tens of thousands of dollars to him.


and that just because Wright is his pastor doesn't mean he believes like him.
Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. But if my rabbi was spewing hate speech like Wright has, you can bet I'd find someplace else to pray. The fact that Obama didn't go find a new church must mean something...


Maybe there are better explanations on here because the ones I have heard are just plain ridiculous.
Or maybe there aren't. Time will tell.

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2008, 01:54 PM
I notice that Obama supporters are ignoring this thread like the proverbial plague.

C'mon guys, tell us why we're wrong! Let's see some spirited defense of Obama here.

Because if you can't do it, and he won't do it, he's going to get his clock cleaned come November.One arguement that I have seen offered and which I consider the most alarming, is that the Church that Barrack Obama attends is typical of mostly black congregations in the US. And that someone who is not black can't find the proper frame of reference for the sermon being offered.

Twilight zone?

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 01:59 PM
One arguement that I have seen offered and which I consider the most alarming, is that the Church that Barrack Obama attends is typical of mostly black congregations in the US.
I have heard that as well. I have a difficult time believing it though. Most black churches/pastors are racist? I just don't buy it.


And that someone who is not black can't find the proper frame of reference for the sermon being offered.What's the frame of refrence? Hate white people? Hate America?

That's not Christianity.

Free Indeed
Mar 18th 2008, 02:35 PM
I notice that Obama supporters are ignoring this thread like the proverbial plague.

C'mon guys, tell us why we're wrong! Let's see some spirited defense of Obama here.

Because if you can't do it, and he won't do it, he's going to get his clock cleaned come November.

Personally, I've ignored it because I think it is extremely silly, childish, and irrelevant. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president, and neither is Geraldine Ferraro.

We all know the Republican playbook: dig up every piece of dirt you can find on the opposition, and air it loudly. If you can't find dirt on the candidate, go after his friends and family. Different day, same old song and dance.....

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2008, 02:52 PM
Personally, I've ignored it because I think it is extremely silly, childish, and irrelevant.That would seem to be the only effective alternative. Just ignore it. Because when it is studied it is ugly.

The faithful (Obama faithful) will accept nearly any explanation because of this. But that isn't going to do it for the rest of us.

To suggest that this is just "republican dirty tricks" is naive and wishful. To say this is about the "repbulicans" is divisive in much the same way that the Rev. Wright's sermons are divisive. That explanation is not going to cut it even with democrats IMO.

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 02:59 PM
Personally, I've ignored it because I think it is extremely silly, childish, and irrelevant. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president, and neither is Geraldine Ferraro.

We all know the Republican playbook: dig up every piece of dirt you can find on the opposition, and air it loudly. If you can't find dirt on the candidate, go after his friends and family. Different day, same old song and dance.....
The man worked for his campaign and apparently was an important person in his life. So how much of what he believes does Obama believe?

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:01 PM
From his speech:

For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Uh, dude, my rabbi never said 'God damn America', and if he did you can be sure I'd be finding someplace else to pray.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:05 PM
That would seem to be the only effective alternative. Just ignore it. Because when it is studied it is ugly.

The faithful (Obama faithful) will accept nearly any explanation because of this. But that isn't going to do it for the rest of us.

To suggest that this is just "republican dirty tricks" is naive and wishful. To say this is about the "repbulicans" is divisive in much the same way that the Rev. Wright's sermons are divisive. That explanation is not going to cut it even with democrats IMO.

God Bless!Oh yes.

It's very easy to ignore ugly things and pretend they don't exist. That doesn't make the ugly thing go away though.

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2008, 03:17 PM
From Obama's speech:
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.To me, the last sentence is the climax of his speech. And then, continuing:
And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. :dunno: That is odd on several levels. First, does solving those challenges solve the race problem? Do they characterize the race problem? Second, why the word never? Why couldn't Hillary solve these? Or John McCain?

Nice climax, but then just a political exploitation IMO.

Still listening to the rest.

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:25 PM
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.

And the guy to work through them is a follower of the guy who used such incendiary language?

I have an idea. Why don't we find some follower of the KKK and have them fix the problem. That is the logic he's using, isn't it?

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:36 PM
He still didn't explain how he can sit in a church where the minister talks rubbish like that.

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2008, 03:37 PM
From Obama's speech:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.Very good again. But again, the following appeals to government to solve the woe. More political exploitation IMO.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.So to me, he is shoving the "bad man, rich oppressor" role on to the government. That is racially neutral and allows the Americans to unite against this unfair foe that is holding us back from racial reconciliation and societal justice.

Basically, I have heard his speach to the end now, and he is using the race issue for political opportunitism. He has reached too far IMO.

His conclusion:
“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.Where do we start? Giving care to the sick, jobs to the jobless, education to our children. The insinuation is that these are being witheld by our current government system.

Where the perfection begins? Contemplate that. I think basically he is saying that perfection begins with Socialism. It hasn't started yet, but it will begin if he is elected. I think I agree with him.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I don't think he pulled it off. It was my most complete introduction to him yet and I am alarmed.

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:48 PM
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."


Can you imagine a white candidate saying that about a white racist?
The media would eat him alive.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 03:54 PM
"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations."


OK, so all of the problems in black America can be blamed on white people.:rolleyes:


Civil rights laws aren't being enforced?

The criminal justice system is unfair and racist?

Black people have no opportunity in this country? This, from a black man running for president?

He IS a follower of reverend Wright. For shame, for shame.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 04:01 PM
Personally, I've ignored it because I think it is extremely silly, childish, and irrelevant. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president, and neither is Geraldine Ferraro.

We all know the Republican playbook: dig up every piece of dirt you can find on the opposition, and air it loudly. If you can't find dirt on the candidate, go after his friends and family. Different day, same old song and dance.....

Yep, that's exactly what Obama said:



We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
In other words, ignore the fact that I support a reverend who is a racist. My campaign is about hope and the future. Not ugly things in the present. Hope! Future! :rofl:

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2008, 04:03 PM
Obama said this in his speach:
And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. Now my quesiton. If Obama secures the nomination of the Democrats but loses in the general election, what might be the conclusion of minorities in America? Feel free to use the last two elections to extrapolate your opinion.

I hate to say it, but I hope this is taken care of by the Democrats at this point. I hope they nominate Hillary. My reasoning is this. Even though I believe "white America" would accept an Obama general election victory, I don't believe the minorities in America are ready to accept an Obama general election defeat. Not to mention the far left's reaction and potential inciting in such a scenario.

Obama has laid it on the line. Either he wins, or we will never be able to come together. Are we ready for the potential consequences of a McCain victory over Obama? Does the election have the potential to turn into an "Obama, or else" threat from some?

God Bless!

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 07:28 PM
You know what? Now a lot of stuff that Obama does makes sense.

All those little things are falling into place. Remember how he wouldn't cover his heart with his hand while hearing the national anthem? Or his refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel?

He really is a student of reverend Wright.

Jeanne D
Mar 18th 2008, 08:32 PM
I hadn't thought of that, Ferris. It certainly makes sense.

Jeanne

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 09:04 PM
Another observation from NRO's blog:


If Obama Was So Troubled by Wright's Words... Why Keep Bringing His Daughters?


Here's the fly in the ointment for Obama's explanation that he heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" and "incindiary language" and "views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike", but disagreed with them, and thus should not be judged by the electorate as somehow, perhaps partially agreeing with Jeremiah Wright's words.

To the best of our knowledge, week after week.... Obama took his daughters there.

Maybe Barack Obama could separate Wright's truly repugnant comments from the rest of what he preached. Maybe while offering no word of rebuke for his pastor, Obama was thinking, "there goes Jeremiah again." Barack and Michelle have sufficiently developed minds to evalutate Wright's claims - the government created the AIDS virus, etc. - for themselves. They could separate, as Obama put it, Wright's "profoundly distorted view of this country" from his words "about our obligations to love one another."

But could his daughters?

They're currently age seven and nine. They have, presumably, been attending Trinity United Church of Christ regularly, or at least as regularly as Obama.

Can you imagine any circumstance in which you voluntarily and regularly take your children to listen to words that are "divisive," "racially charged," exposing them to "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel," and so on? Would you ever take your children to listen to a man call for God to damn America?

As a new dad, I can't imagine it.

Sorry, Barack. That's a bridge too far.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 09:08 PM
And then, of course, there's the possibility that Obama's supporters agree with reverend Wright. We do joke about the 'hate America left', don't we?


Obama and his Audience

They heard a great speech — and what was the problem with Rev. Wright’s sermons, anyway?

By Byron York

Philadelphia — The small auditorium here at the National Constitution Center, where Barack Obama delivered what his aides called a “major address on race, politics, and unifying our country,” was filled mostly with guests invited by the Obama campaign. So it was not surprising that after the speech, Obama’s guests, streaming out of the room into the cavernous atrium of the Center, thought he delivered a great speech. What might be surprising, though, is that a number of them saw nothing particularly wrong with the “controversial” remarks by Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that set this whole process in motion.

“It was amazing,” Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. “I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don’t know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory.”

I asked Davis what his personal reaction was when he saw video clips of sermons in which Rev. Wright said, “God damn America,” called the United States the “U.S. of KKK A,” and said that 9/11 was “America’s chickens… coming home to roost.” “As a member of a traditional Baptist, black church, I wasn’t surprised,” Davis told me. “I wasn’t offended by anything the pastor said. A lot of things he said were absolutely correct…. The way he said it may not have been the most appropriate way to say it, but as far as a typical black inner-city church, that’s how it’s said.”

Vernon Price, a ward leader in Philadelphia’s 22nd Precinct, told me Obama’s speech was “very courageous.” When I asked his reaction to Rev. Wright, Price said, “A lot of things that he said were true, whether people want to accept it, or believe it, or not. People believe in their hearts that a lot of what he said was true.”

Rev. Alyn Waller, of the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church in Philadelphia, was effusive about Obama’s performance. “I thought it was masterful,” he told me. Waller explained that he knows Rev. Wright and the preaching tradition from which he comes. “I think much of what he had to say was on point in terms of America needs to challenge her foreign policy,” Waller told me. “While it may be divisive to talk about 9/11 as chickens coming home to roost, what was really being said there is that America cannot believe that our hands are totally innocent in worldwide violence. So at the core of his arguments, I think there is a truth.”

Shortly after “controversial” portions of Wright’s sermons were played on television last week, Obama issued a carefully worded response, saying, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.” In Philadelphia today, Obama conceded that his earlier statement did not answer all the questions about the issue, and he said he had indeed heard Wright make what are often referred to as “fiery” statements. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?” Obama said. “Yes.”

But Obama equated Wright’s “God damn America” comment with the sort of speaking that goes on in churches and synagogues every day. “Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?” Obama asked. “Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Obama took care not to distance himself any further from his long-time pastor, stressing that Wright had “strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.” If anything, Obama drew Wright closer than he had in the hours after the “God damn America” story broke. “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community,” Obama told the audience. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are part of me.”

In the end, Obama delivered a well-crafted speech. Has he ever made a truly bad one? But his address at the National Constitution Center did not put to rest the concerns of those Americans who wonder just what he thought as he sat in Wright’s church listening to the pastor’s “controversial” statements; after all, Obama knew of Wright’s positions and had planned, until a very cold day and fear of controversy forced a change, to have Wright deliver the invocation at his presidential announcement last year. Beyond that, the reactions of some Obama partisans in the audience here in Philadelphia today did not put to rest concerns that Rev. Wright’s comments are not the subject of universal disapproval but are in fact positions with which many of Obama’s supporters agree.

menJesus
Mar 18th 2008, 09:15 PM
From his speech:


Uh, dude, my rabbi never said 'God damn America', and if he did you can be sure I'd be finding someplace else to pray.

I nearly fell OVER when I heard that today! What on earth is that about!!!

From a preacher??? I said he`d be lucky if he had a parishioner LEFT, come Sunday.

And rightly so!

menJesus
Mar 18th 2008, 09:20 PM
OK, so all of the problems in black America can be blamed on white people.:rolleyes:


Civil rights laws aren't being enforced?

The criminal justice system is unfair and racist?

Black people have no opportunity in this country? This, from a black man running for president?

He IS a follower of reverend Wright. For shame, for shame.


Yes, no, yes, no, and yes! Racism is a BIG problem - I see it every day of my life...

Obama made that speech in an attempt to do damage control, while pulling the "black" card out at the same time.

Personally, I think this is what will ruin him.

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 09:32 PM
I don't deny that racism exists.

For example, reverend Wright is racist.

menJesus
Mar 18th 2008, 09:35 PM
How many days do you think the good reverend has left, as pastor there? I`d say, not many...

Fenris
Mar 18th 2008, 09:57 PM
How many days do you think the good reverend has left, as pastor there? I`d say, not many...Oh, I don't know. he seems quite popular amongst his flock...

menJesus
Mar 18th 2008, 10:04 PM
And that, as in politics, is subject to change without notice. We`ll see... ;)

diffangle
Mar 18th 2008, 10:31 PM
But Obama equated Wright’s “God damn America” comment with the sort of speaking that goes on in churches and synagogues every day. “Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?” Obama asked. “Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”


"Churches and synagogues"..."pastors, priests, or rabbis"... I think he meant to say mosques and imams. :rolleyes:

diffangle
Mar 18th 2008, 10:31 PM
How many days do you think the good reverend has left, as pastor there? I`d say, not many...


Oh, I don't know. he seems quite popular amongst his flock...
I think he's retired.

EarlyCall
Mar 18th 2008, 11:18 PM
I have heard some of the arguments that are going for Obama in this. Arguments such as we have only heard 30 or 40 second clips from sermons (how much do we need to hear to figure out his point) and how John Hagee supports McCain and that just because Wright is his pastor doesn't mean he believes like him. Maybe there are better explanations on here because the ones I have heard are just plain ridiculous.

Let's say bush attended KKK meetings almost every Sunday but came out saying he didn't know they were racists. Would you buy that one.

Likewise, obama can't deny he didn't know this hate-filled racist pastor was exactly that after twenty years of attending the church and listening to this guy rant and rave. And considering such hatred spewing from this man, such people have a tendency to be so all the time and every chance they get - just like the KKK.

EarlyCall
Mar 18th 2008, 11:29 PM
Personally, I've ignored it because I think it is extremely silly, childish, and irrelevant. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president, and neither is Geraldine Ferraro.

We all know the Republican playbook: dig up every piece of dirt you can find on the opposition, and air it loudly. If you can't find dirt on the candidate, go after his friends and family. Different day, same old song and dance.....

Well, you being a liberal, from the sound of it, I would expect nothing less. However, being an honest person myself, I call things as they appear to be, if enough evidence suggests it is so. And when the libs stop digging up dirt as they did when Bush was running and they tried to make a big deal out his speaking one time at Bob Jones universtiy... Now what was it you were saying?

I think it quite feasible that the obama's have been influenced by this pastor and that is a great and legitimate concern. Michelle obama's remark about being proud of the US for the first time in her adult life... Sounds like she has been influenced by the "good" pastor if you ask me.

Regardless, obama talks about unity but attends a church with a quest and roots in division and hatred for whites. Yea, that is silly and childish too I suppose, but hardly irrelevant.

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 01:03 AM
I read Obama's first book. It is very revealing as to his background and pathway, growing up in a white family but not fitting in. Then trying to be with blacks, and not fitting in there, either. Finally he went to Africa and found his black relatives, and connected quite powerfully with them, apparently.

The church, Rev Wright, etc., apparently helped him put his confusion into perspective.

I've heard snippets of the sermons on the tv in the last day or so. I have to say that some of the things he says, I have also heard in Christian communities (minus the racial parts.) And some I have heard among the conspiracy theorists. He didn't make up any of what he says, he borrowed it all from other people and put it into a black American framework. It resonates with a lot of people - people who are walking around with a TON of hurt and anger and don't know how to get out from under the burden of being Black in America.

Obama may be misguided, incompetent and a fool. But I believe he sincerely wants to make things better in America for black people. His pastor may or may not be a "racist" but I don't think Obama is.

PyrK
Mar 19th 2008, 05:29 AM
I read Obama's first book. It is very revealing as to his background and pathway, growing up in a white family but not fitting in. Then trying to be with blacks, and not fitting in there, either. Finally he went to Africa and found his black relatives, and connected quite powerfully with them, apparently.

The church, Rev Wright, etc., apparently helped him put his confusion into perspective.

I've heard snippets of the sermons on the tv in the last day or so. I have to say that some of the things he says, I have also heard in Christian communities (minus the racial parts.) And some I have heard among the conspiracy theorists. He didn't make up any of what he says, he borrowed it all from other people and put it into a black American framework. It resonates with a lot of people - people who are walking around with a TON of hurt and anger and don't know how to get out from under the burden of being Black in America.

Obama may be misguided, incompetent and a fool. But I believe he sincerely wants to make things better in America for black people. His pastor may or may not be a "racist" but I don't think Obama is.

If Obama doesn't have the judgment on picking his church and sitting in the pews of this guy's speeches then why should I give him my vote and trust that he will have the judgment on anything in this country.

Also - the guy can't sit in and debate with anyone. Sure he can give a GREAT speech, but giving speeches isn't what gives you good foreign relations, you have to be able to have one on one conversations, and the guy has no backbone. You see it in every debate he is in. He's weak, he's forgettable.

His brainwashing messianic speeches should begin to ware down as more is revealed about who he truly is...


I liked the guy until I learned anything about him (his policies and his background... he just started voting so we don't know much based on that)

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 05:36 AM
If Obama doesn't have the judgment on picking his church and sitting in the pews of this guy's speeches then why should I give him my vote and trust that he will have the judgment on anything in this country.

Also - the guy can't sit in and debate with anyone. Sure he can give a GREAT speech, but giving speeches isn't what gives you good foreign relations, you have to be able to have one on one conversations, and the guy has no backbone. You see it in every debate he is in. He's weak, he's forgettable.

His brainwashing messianic speeches should begin to ware down as more is revealed about who he truly is...

I liked the guy until I learned anything about him (his policies and his background... he just started voting so we don't know much based on that)

If you read his book, you will understand why he is weak and forgettable. I'm certainly not encouraging anyone to vote for him. I don't plan to do so. And this issue may be what sinks him, and if Hilary gets the Dem nom, then it will be McCan and Clinton. Which one of those do you pick?

I don't think we have a lot of good choices, but then when have we ever had good choices?

If this doesn't sink him, if by some stretch he gets the Dem nom, and by some chance he gets into the White House -

Well I don't like to speculate, so I'll shut up now.

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 05:39 AM
:cry:
Obama said this in his speach:Now my quesiton. If Obama secures the nomination of the Democrats but loses in the general election, what might be the conclusion of minorities in America? Feel free to use the last two elections to extrapolate your opinion.

I hate to say it, but I hope this is taken care of by the Democrats at this point. I hope they nominate Hillary. My reasoning is this. Even though I believe "white America" would accept an Obama general election victory, I don't believe the minorities in America are ready to accept an Obama general election defeat. Not to mention the far left's reaction and potential inciting in such a scenario.

Obama has laid it on the line. Either he wins, or we will never be able to come together. Are we ready for the potential consequences of a McCain victory over Obama? Does the election have the potential to turn into an "Obama, or else" threat from some?

God Bless!

You bring out a very interesting point! I tend to agree with your thoughts here. We know what happened with OJ Simpson's trial ...

:pray::pray::pray: May the Lord have mercy on us all!

There is just too much hurt in the world. :cry:

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 12:17 PM
Obama may be misguided, incompetent and a fool. But I believe he sincerely wants to make things better in America for black people. His pastor may or may not be a "racist" but I don't think Obama is.

Is there racism in America today? Yes.

Is there institutionalized racism in America today? No. Are people made to be property because of the color of their skin? No. Are people not allowed to vote because of the color of their skin? No.

So what exactly is Obama going to do? Stop bigots from hating black people? Make modern-day white people pay for the sins of white people who lived 150 years ago?

Last I checked, the president is supposed to represent all Americans, not just people who have the same skin color as him.

Obama is going to have serious problems getting moderates and independents to vote for him.

daughter
Mar 19th 2008, 12:26 PM
He's got his most recent speech on the front page of the Torygraph... oops, Telegraph... It's all about change, hope, unity...

sheesh.

You know he's suckerooning people when the Tories start believing his rhetoric!

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 12:46 PM
I found this good piece in of all places, the Jerusalem Post.



The pastor and the senator

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS , THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 18, 2008

Arriving in Washington DC during the '80s, my most difficult challenge was finding a church home. Having grown up in the Pentecostal and Methodist faith, Sunday worship was a staple of my weekly routine. For almost 10 years I canvassed the nation's capital seeking a church that would take my fleshly failings and remind me of what our Creator expects of us as human beings.


What was consistent in going from pulpit to pulpit was that ministers were more interested in political rhetoric, the endorsement of political candidates and the denouncing of some government or community proposal, than the Gospel. It was disheartening for many years knowing that ministers were not teaching or preaching the word of God, that their sermons were becoming political rallies. I was stunned by the relentless blame cast upon the white man, by the rhetoric of racial divisiveness and the emphasis on things that seemed to separate us from our neighbors.


Then, in 1995, I attended First Baptist Church in DC, where the Rev. Frank Tucker presided, and my spirit finally found what it was seeking. I will never forget meeting with the pastor prior to joining and expressing my feelings about what I was looking for in a church. I made it clear that my interest was in the word of God and not in political rallies, condemnation of America, and various politicians occupying the pulpit on Sunday. He shared my concerns and promised that this wasn't the case at his church.


I've been a member of Pastor Tucker's church for about 13 years now, and he's never disappointed my spiritual yearning. Through the years I've taken whites, Muslims, Jews and people of all walks of life to worship with me, and they all have left feeling that they could join the pastor's congregation.

THERE ARE still black churches and mosques today that identify with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, hypocritical sermons. During the '50s, '60s and '70s, the black church was a place where blacks could gather and unite away from the harshness and brutality of racism and vicious hatred. It was a place where ministers could help their congregations express their anger and frustration at white America's ungodliness toward their black brethren. Many ministers during those tumultuous times were considered heroes and pillars of the community for they were preaching against an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.


People like Jeremiah Wright are still preaching as though we're in the '50s or '60s, and are locked in this time warp. They refuse to elevate and celebrate the progress of America and acknowledge that presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign is evidence of that amazing paradigm shift.

It strikes me as impossible for Senator Barack Obama and his wife to have patronized Rev. Wright's church for so many years and not embraced his teachings and vision of America. My minister has always had a profound impact on my outlook on life and has strengthened my spirit to forgive the transgressions of this world and not induce more hate and separation.


I find it difficult to believe Senator Obama when he tells us that he was unaware of his pastor's vicious message from the pulpit, and that had he known it, there would have been condemnation. Many black intellectuals are still angry over what they perceive as the continuous crippling effect of racism and slavery in America on their careers. The irony is that many of their children have embraced the United States, finding success and prosperity, while their parents continue to allow their wounds to be perpetuated in this hopeless mind-set preached from the pulpit.


Michelle Obama's expression of how, for the first time, she was proud of America, was indicative of the influence of her pastor.


SENATOR OBAMA should admit that since his campaigning he's seen a different America. He must show that he rejects and repudiates this negative school of thinking. Furthermore, he should state that no one should be a member of churches or mosques which preach such hatred and conspiratorial thinking, continuously emphasizing the worst in our country and not the phenomenal progress made.


This past week was not an exemplary moment for the man who has prided himself on integrity and honesty throughout this campaign. The fact is that the senator has no plausible excuse for why he remained a member of Rev. Wright's church. He and his family should have immediately left that congregation for the embrace of a church that teaches the Bible rather than the alienation, lunacy and outright mockery of Christian teachings.


It was impossible for my spirit to endure these churches, as can be evidenced by my negative descriptions of them. It makes no sense for someone in search of America's promise and potential to worship in a place where a doctrine of hatred is the central theme. I was taught that church was a place of escape and rest; I didn't want someone who is supposed to be a religious leader feeding me poisonous information.


My reason for going to church has always been for a spiritual recharge, not more of the same; I deal with politics 24/6, and one day a week I get a chance to take a break from all that. I believe this to be healthy, and think it sad that I had to try so hard, for so long, to find a church able to provide the rest or Sabbath mentioned in the Bible.


No one need be forced to settle for a church that proffers divisive politics in place of spiritual succor. Senator Obama seems only belatedly to have discovered this simple reality.


The day must surely come when churches - black or otherwise - which preach hate will return to the Word.


The writer is a syndicated columnist and a television and radio talk show host in the US.

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 01:41 PM
I found this good piece in of all places, the Jerusalem Post.
It's not surprising the article came from the JP... he(Wright) has great disdain for Israel afterall.

Good article btw, makes me wonder if Obama hasn't attended that church his entire adult life solely b/c of his political ambitions instead of actually seeking spiritual understanding.

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 01:54 PM
Good article btw, makes me wonder if Obama hasn't attended that church his entire adult life solely b/c of his political ambitions instead of actually seeking spiritual understanding.

Maybe, but this guy isn't helping Obama's political ambitions...

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 01:56 PM
Maybe, but this guy isn't helping Obama's political ambitions...
Maybe not now, but I believe Wright had a pretty big church and radio presence so he may have been instrumental/influencial in his rise.

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 01:59 PM
Maybe, but this guy isn't helping Obama's political ambitions...
Maybe he is or isn't, his speech yesterday sure had some of my clients singing his praises. :rolleyes:

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 02:13 PM
Maybe not now, but I believe Wright had a pretty big church and radio presence so he may have been instrumental/influencial in his rise.
Hmm yeah perhaps it helped him in local politics. Good point.

Free Indeed
Mar 19th 2008, 02:41 PM
And when the libs stop digging up dirt as they did when Bush was running and they tried to make a big deal out his speaking one time at Bob Jones universtiy... Now what was it you were saying?

Interesting that you bring that up. I live in Greenville, SC, home of Bob Jones University. Bush spoke there during the 2000 campaign, and strongly denounced John McCain, who had just won New Hampshire.

In fact, the Bush/ Karl Rove machine saturated SC TV with ads talking about how McCain was a traitor and heathen, while positioning himslef as a "True Christian" candidate for this Bible Belt state.

Now, Bush supports McCain, and is trying to pass the mantle. And he called Kerry a flip-flopper? :rolleyes:

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 02:54 PM
I found this good piece in of all places, the Jerusalem Post.

I really do like Armstrong Williams. Great article. He is bang on.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 03:12 PM
Interesting that you bring that up. I live in Greenville, SC, home of Bob Jones University. Bush spoke there during the 2000 campaign, and strongly denounced John McCain, who had just won New Hampshire.

In fact, the Bush/ Karl Rove machine saturated SC TV with ads talking about how McCain was a traitor and heathen, while positioning himslef as a "True Christian" candidate for this Bible Belt state.

Now, Bush supports McCain, and is trying to pass the mantle. And he called Kerry a flip-flopper? :rolleyes:Hey, I've lived in Greenville! The view of the mountains is what I miss the most and the people. But you know what? This thread is about Obama and his racist pastor (I'm black btw ;)) If you want to discuss whether Bush has flip-flopped, please start another thread so this one doesn't get derailed. :)

God Bless!

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 03:26 PM
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.

I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. :hmm:

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 03:28 PM
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. :hmm:
Only a racist would point this out. :P

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 03:37 PM
Only a racist would point this out. :P
Huh? :confused :rolleyes:

Here's an interesting little video on Obama's "Christianity"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA&feature=related

I love Alan Keyes response to the question.

Free Indeed
Mar 19th 2008, 03:40 PM
Hey, I've lived in Greenville! The view of the mountains is what I miss the most and the people.

Kewl!


But you know what? This thread is about Obama and his racist pastor (I'm black btw ;))

I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist. Has he made unpopular and non-politically-correct remarks? Yes. But I don't think that he is racist (and I'm white). Here are the words of a white attendee of Obama's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 03:54 PM
Kewl!



I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist. Has he made unpopular and non-politically-correct remarks? Yes. But I don't think that he is racist (and I'm white). Here are the words of a white attendee of Obama's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw
What do you make of the churches endorsement of Farrakhan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNd4JyYZnY&feature=related

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 03:55 PM
I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist. Has he made unpopular and non-politically-correct remarks? Yes. But I don't think that he is racist (and I'm white). Here are the words of a white attendee of Obama's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUwScripture tells us that we are no longer to focus on differences like being Jew or Greek, slave or free, and I believe if Paul were writing today he would also say, black or white. That a preacher would be preaching such babble from the pulpit is ridiculous. Praising a nation of Islam leader as one of the greatest religious leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries. I guess the fact that he rejects Yeshua as Messiah doesn't count to the rev. :hmm: Asking God to 'damn' America? Come on! You can defend that?

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 04:06 PM
I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist.
His church appears to be:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-church-re-writes-their-mission-page

theabaud
Mar 19th 2008, 04:10 PM
I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist. Has he made unpopular and non-politically-correct remarks? Yes. But I don't think that he is racist (and I'm white). Here are the words of a white attendee of Obama's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUwDude, the guy said that Jesus was a poor black man. He rewrote history and the Bible to make Jesus into what he wanted him to be. Didn't some Nazi's do the same thing, only made him blond hair and blue eyed?

He blames white people for everything. There is some accuracy to that as some of the current problems among black communities can be traced back to the colonization of America and the Slave trade, but it is venom that he is preaching.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 04:11 PM
His church appears to be:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-church-re-writes-their-mission-pageThe internet way-back machine! :lol:

EarlyCall
Mar 19th 2008, 04:36 PM
Interesting that you bring that up. I live in Greenville, SC, home of Bob Jones University. Bush spoke there during the 2000 campaign, and strongly denounced John McCain, who had just won New Hampshire.

In fact, the Bush/ Karl Rove machine saturated SC TV with ads talking about how McCain was a traitor and heathen, while positioning himslef as a "True Christian" candidate for this Bible Belt state.

Now, Bush supports McCain, and is trying to pass the mantle. And he called Kerry a flip-flopper? :rolleyes:

Nevertheless, I called you on it as to the dems pulling the very same thing, using the very same tactics you accused republicans of doing concerning this obama bit.

All you really had to do was admit that the dems do the very same thing you accused the republicans of doing. Regardless of whether you admit to it or not is meaningless since every honest person not ignorant of it all understands this.

The business you raise here is seemingly an attempt at avoidance. Tit for tat is pointless.

Your point about this mess of obama's being something from the republican handbook is debatable, but it is necessary because there is certainly more to obama than mere hope, change and unity. If that is all there is to the man and his past and what makes him tick, then he is indeed a very shallow person.

Hatred, racism and hate-mongering are just as wicked and just as vile coming from blacks as it is from whites or anyone else. Things he has done and said, like refusing to wear the american flag pin as one example, things his wife has said, all lead me to believe the man has been very influenced by his pastor. As has his wife, and she will have influence over obama (most women do influence their husbands).

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 04:39 PM
The internet way-back machine! :lol:It's like a time machine for the internet!

EarlyCall
Mar 19th 2008, 04:41 PM
Kewl!



I do not believe that Rev. Wright is racist. Has he made unpopular and non-politically-correct remarks? Yes. But I don't think that he is racist (and I'm white). Here are the words of a white attendee of Obama's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw


Whatever in the world then might his pastor have to say for you to think he is a racist?

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 04:44 PM
It's like a time machine for the internet!
Pretty funny :lol:...and useful at the same time.

ProjectPeter
Mar 19th 2008, 04:45 PM
Thing is guys... it isn't going to matter in the primary. Since neither Michigan or Florida will have a re-vote... he's in like flint and Hillbilly's chances are dwindling quickly. The only hope they will have is if the court overturns then I don't suspect the Supreme Court will. No American is being denied the right to vote in a NATIONAL or LOCAL election. The primaries are nothing more than party politics and they won't agree to overturn the rules at the end of the game.

It is funny to me because what this proves... Obama is the classic politician. In Illinois this stuff played because the black population is very high and they love this stuff. Here is a fact folks... Wright is only one of MANY black preachers that blow this smoke on Sunday mornings. Fred Price has done this nonsense on TBN for the last many years so that everyone is "shocked" shows me that folks aren't paying attention. This is absolutely nothing new among many black churches in this country.

AND NO... NOT ALL. But many.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 05:34 PM
It's no different than some white preacher who might spout off about blacks being under the curse of Ham or something. Racism is racism no matter what color! :yes:

ProjectPeter
Mar 19th 2008, 05:40 PM
It's no different than some white preacher who might spout off about blacks being under the curse of Ham or something. Racism is racism no matter what color! :yes:
That is no doubt and there is plenty of that mess too.

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 05:50 PM
[quote=Studyin'2Show;1578019]It's no different than some white preacher who might spout off about blacks being under the curse of Ham or something.

Racism is racism no matter what color! :yes:

Amein, exactly! As I say, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism... it's all just plain ol' racism no matter what direction it runs. :(

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 06:20 PM
Snopes has an interesting page on Barak here http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp#muslim which quotes some excerpts from his book, and debunks the idea that he refuses to salute the flag, etc.

Fenris
Mar 19th 2008, 06:44 PM
From http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/564951/trashing-grandma-yet.thtml




Trashing grandma, yet



Tuesday, 18th March 2008






Let us first remind ourselves of some of the sayings and activities of Barack Obama’s pastor, friend, mentor and ‘sounding board’ Rev Jeremiah Wright, which have at last attracted the attention of the American media:

He said ‘God bless America’ should be replaced by ‘God damn America’.

He said 9/11 resulted from corrupt American foreign policy.

He blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

He is a friend and ally of the black power racist and Jew-hating demagogue Louis Farrakhan.

Under pressure, Obama in his make-or-break speech (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html) today went further than before in denouncing Wright’s comments.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy…the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Okaaay — but if he thinks Wright’s view were so appalling how come Obama was a member of a church where the pastor embodied such appalling views, and where Obama sat through such poisonous sermonising in services every week? For Wright’s comments weren’t just controversial. They were beyond the pale. There are many more of them than have been reported: the church is a black power church. How could Obama have remained in such a church unless he agreed with its basic black power philosophy? How come he was recruited into Christianity in the first place by such a man? The desperate attempts in the last few days to bat away such questions by suggesting that Obama didn’t really know about Wright’s attitudes are themselves blown away by Obama’s own comments today:
… But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

…And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Rev. Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Yes, Obama is a person who would trash his own grandmother to gain the American presidency!

After his declaration of love for the black power racist Pastor Wright, Obama then digs himself in deeper:
We can dismiss Rev. Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Rev. Wright made in his offending sermons about America -- to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.So if we dismiss Wright as a crank or demagogue we are supposedly dismissing the importance of race. So Wright supposedly speaks for all those who want to defeat racial prejudice. But the whole point about Wright is that he embodies racial prejudice. Now look at how Obama turns this fact on its head:
But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow… This is the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.Ah. So Wright’s racism against white people is all the fault of — white people! Warming to his theme, Obama then tells us that white people too have the same kind of ‘anger’ that fuels Pastor Wright’s hate-filled jeremiads.
Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.So the anger of these ‘conservatives’ at the inverse racism of political correctness and the systematic defamation and bullying of white people under its banner is as valid as Pastor Wright’s racism, his defamation of America and his bullying of white people.

Wow, this is really creative twisting!!
The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. No. The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is that he is a bigot.

But hey, Obama doesn’t want us to talk about Wright’s sermons any more. He wants us to start swaying and clapping and chanting along with his hypnotic rhetoric, presumably so redolent of the cadences of Pastor Wright. Because Obama stands for change. And now we know what he wants to change. He wants to change the subject.

theabaud
Mar 19th 2008, 07:07 PM
Snopes has an interesting page on Barak here http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp#muslim which quotes some excerpts from his book, and debunks the idea that he refuses to salute the flag, etc.Did you read the link? It said it was true that he did not have his hand over his heart. There have been several other pictures of him with his hand over his heart which shows that he does not refuse, but that he certainly is pretty lax concerning this custom.

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 07:26 PM
Did you read the link? It said it was true that he did not have his hand over his heart. There have been several other pictures of him with his hand over his heart which shows that he does not refuse, but that he certainly is pretty lax concerning this custom.

Sometimes I think we need to take a step back from political rhetoric and debate, look to see what is true and what is not. We need to judge people according to truth. There are plenty of reasons to say that he would not make a good president, without resorting to lies, is all I'm saying.

I also thought the book excerpts might be of interest to members. I found the book itself to be a fascinating glimpse inside the man.

theabaud
Mar 19th 2008, 08:09 PM
Sometimes I think we need to take a step back from political rhetoric and debate, look to see what is true and what is not. We need to judge people according to truth. There are plenty of reasons to say that he would not make a good president, without resorting to lies, is all I'm saying.

I also thought the book excerpts might be of interest to members. I found the book itself to be a fascinating glimpse inside the man.Can I ever agree with that. It is so frustrating to have to argue against those you agree with to get to argue the real points. I am a KJV proponent, and there are so many myths out there from people of my belief that have to be debunked for anyone to listen to me intelligently in that discussion. The same is true for politics. If we want people to take us seriously in our opposition to Obama, lets deal with issues and character and not fairy tales about him being a Muslim, etc.

NHL Fever
Mar 19th 2008, 08:09 PM
This seems to be the first real challenge for the Obama campaign regarding his beliefs and connections. It will be interesting both to see if his message manages to rise above the scrum, and if Hilary goes on a full out attack brining this out every chance she gets. No doubt every politician has to navigate the mess of every past connection or dealing they have ever had, and manage to not offend a majority of people.

Some of the greatest Christian leaders have had their moments of fault with racist or derogatory statements or beliefs. It doesn't take long to find seemingly brainless/extreme statements by checking out Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, for example, both with long established connections to republican candidates. The challenge for the candidates is whether the electorate can differentiate between the candidate's beliefs and their associations, of which all have some of questionable intent.

If you extract excerpts from most pastors, you can easily frame them in any you want depending on what you choose. What we need is transcripts of the entire sermons, and some idea of whether that is typical. If you took your pastors worst day and then his most-off statements, a greatly skewed picture may emerge of who you associate with. That doesn't mean that person had no positive influence on your life, or that they don't have genuine love and support for you or others.

It wasn't too long ago especially in the south that not too many people could honestly say they didn't have influence on their life by someone with racist, although perhaps subtle or even well-meant, inclinations. Perhaps a grandfather/grandmother, uncle, teacher etc of the old mindset. But can one say these people didn't love them or care about them? I think most often they are some of the most caring and defensive people when it comes to their family, neighborhood, church, or town. For those of you who are first-generation Christians, can I extract an understanding of who you are by your parents or family, arguable the greatest influence on you for a large portion of your life? Everyone has an example like this in their life.

15 years ago my grandpa was a lot more willing to give the occasional race-related joke in what he thought was good taste compared to today. When I met my wife, I could still tell they were somewhat less than impressed with someone from a 'foreign culture', until they met her God-fearing, Christ following family. My grandpa once told me about how a person can change, and how during the war, he thought it was a great idea to round up the Japanese into internment camps, and how extreme he realizes that was when he thinks of it now. My grandpa is one of the most hard-working, faithful, honest and good people there is.

This guy (Wright) sounds like he's way out in crazy land, the question is whether Obama is in the model of this guy, or whether he's just there out of loyalty to a place he grew up with and was part of his culture (see above). If I met your pastor on his most out-on-the-edge day, would I be able to make accurate predictions about what kind of person you are? Even if he baptized your kids? I doubt I get much more than a peripheral look into who you are.

Is there any record of Obama espousing these views or person behaviour reflective of them? That's what I would be interested in. In the meantime I would treat it like I treat McCain's association with Falwell for example (denounced him, and then gave speech at Liberty's graduation), as a legacy of the place and people he came from and a source of political base support.

There is essentially no chance Obama will push back against abortions or the indoctrination of people to be morally accepting of homosexuality. These are much more important issues than running down every association he had. Nobody has a perfect life or perfect connections. My feeling is that if you want to base judgment on one connection, you have to base it on all their connections. Take it all together and appreciate that people are a mix of their influences, not products of the most wild element. His parents and wife, political associated he works with on a daily basis, and friends almost certainly wield more influence.

We also have to consider the ability of people to change for the better or the worse. For example Bush had a history of alcohol and drug abuse, which he then conquered and made personal improvement. Romney, if you believe it, came from pro-choice to realize his error and became pro-life. John Newton was a slave owner who wrote a great song of personal redemption and repentance, Paul killed and destroyed the work of God, and became its biggest promoter.


Can I ever agree with that. It is so frustrating to have to argue against those you agree with to get to argue the real points. I am a KJV proponent, and there are so many myths out there from people of my belief that have to be debunked for anyone to listen to me intelligently in that discussion. The same is true for politics. If we want people to take us seriously in our opposition to Obama, lets deal with issues and character and not fairy tales about him being a Muslim, etc.

Amen to that.

Brother Mark
Mar 19th 2008, 08:22 PM
Put this in context with what his wife said... "this is the first time I have been proud to be an American" or something like that. If they've bought into Wright's theology, it would make sense why she doesn't like this country. 20 years is a long time to hear someone preach and not know his stance. Did anyone notice how the church cheered at those statements? It sure didn't seem to catch the congregation off guard.

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 09:11 PM
I do not expect Hilary will jump on this - she dare not risk alienating the voters in the black communities of this country.

Here is a story many of us may not know. Slavery was abolished by the U.S. Congress on January 31, 1965, but it was several months before the slaves in Texas found out that they had been set free. So they celebrated - it was June 19th. The black Americans of Texas to this day celebrate "June 'teenth."

The memory of the Holocaust will never be erased from Jewish mind, and slavery in America will never be erased from minds of black Americans.

The question becomes, what do we do about it? How do we come to grips with such deep and enduring wounds? Rev. Wright was dealing with it his way. What should be our way?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 09:53 PM
The question becomes, what do we do about it? How do we come to grips with such deep and enduring wounds? Rev. Wright was dealing with it his way. What should be our way?When we have a physical wound it doesn't get better because we keep picking the scab. My parents did not raise me to revisit the past but to press forward to the future. A wound heals by treating it and leaving it alone. Oh yeah, it will itch and you will be tempted to scratch it but if you do it will NEVER heal properly. Way too much scab picking if you ask me. :rolleyes:

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 10:02 PM
When we have a physical wound it doesn't get better because we keep picking the scab. My parents did not raise me to revisit the past but to press forward to the future. A wound heals by treating it and leaving it alone. Oh yeah, it will itch and you will be tempted to scratch it but if you do it will NEVER heal properly. Way too much scab picking if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Great analogy. If there is a thorn inside, you need to get it out, though. I think Rev Wright and his crowd still have a thorn inside. For some people it goes deeper than a scab.

I think the one valid point in it all, is that there is still need for treatment in some areas. A lot of healing has happened in the last 50 years. But it seems that there remain pockets of infection.

Is there a difference in how we approach this politically (who to vote for) and spiritually as Christians, in our view of the people involved?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2008, 10:26 PM
Great analogy. If there is a thorn inside, you need to get it out, though. I think Rev Wright and his crowd still have a thorn inside. For some people it goes deeper than a scab.

I think the one valid point in it all, is that there is still need for treatment in some areas. A lot of healing has happened in the last 50 years. But it seems that there remain pockets of infection.

Is there a difference in how we approach this politically (who to vote for) and spiritually as Christians, in our view of the people involved?The 'slave mentality' IS the thorn. I do not have the 'slave mentality'. 'The man' does NOT determine my existence. You know what? Not everyone is going to like me. So what! If they want to follow me around the store, who cares. Even if there is an employer that wouldn't want to hire me because I'm black, guess what? I'll find the one that will. If no one will, then I'll find some product or service to sell and I'll work for myself. If no one will buy my product or service then I will die but guess what? I will die free without the thorn of the 'slave mentality'! Look at the Jews. They have been hated by so many but that 'slave mentality' does not consume them. As long as some person or government or social program is what you think controls your existence, that thorn will still be there. It is only when each one becomes accountable for his own actions without any need to blame anyone or anything for perceived failures, that the thorn can be removed so the healing process can begin. The sad part is that many are so comfortable with the thorn that they don't know how to exist without it. :cry:

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Mar 19th 2008, 10:38 PM
I was moaning to God one day and complaining about my circumstances. I had bought into a victim mentality. (Though I do believe there are victims.) God asked me an interesting question along with a statement. He said "You are a child of the king. When will you start living like it?"

Woa! It was a turning point for me in my life. For too long I had allowed my circumstances to determine my attitude. Oh, the temptation is still there, but with God's help, I embrace the cross now instead of whining about it.

As for Rev Wright, I haven't heard enough of his preaching to really know what he is trying to say. It didn't sound good at first. But I can think of many things that the US has done that must put off an awful smell to the Lord. Though I don't wish or desire anyone's damnation or fall, I can certainly understand someone saying that the chickens will come home to roost. But that's not what all I got from the clippings I heard.

I suspect, this will hurt Senator Obama far more than he realizes. If he has surrounded himself in this movement for 20 years, he may not realize at this point how distasteful those clips will be to Avg Joe American.

NHL Fever
Mar 19th 2008, 11:12 PM
Look at the Jews. They have been hated by so many but that 'slave mentality' does not consume them.
God Bless!

That's a great example because not only have the Jews not bought into the slave mentality, but they have also thrived and succeeded as a people financially, politically, etc. Sure there are exceptions but by and large they have gone from bad situation to overcoming.

RoadWarrior
Mar 19th 2008, 11:13 PM
The 'slave mentality' IS the thorn. I do not have the 'slave mentality'. 'The man' does NOT determine my existence. You know what? Not everyone is going to like me. So what! If they want to follow me around the store, who cares. Even if there is an employer that wouldn't want to hire me because I'm black, guess what? I'll find the one that will. If no one will, then I'll find some product or service to sell and I'll work for myself. If no one will buy my product or service then I will die but guess what? I will die free without the thorn of the 'slave mentality'! Look at the Jews. They have been hated by so many but that 'slave mentality' does not consume them. As long as some person or government or social program is what you think controls your existence, that thorn will still be there. It is only when each one becomes accountable for his own actions without any need to blame anyone or anything for perceived failures, that the thorn can be removed so the healing process can begin. The sad part is that many are so comfortable with the thorn that they don't know how to exist without it. :cry:

God Bless!

Studyin, this is beautiful. It reminds me that we as Christians are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. The real problem that most people have, is the mentality issue. What we expect in our lives, we tend to create/attract in our lives.

Being "accountable for our own actions" and "responsible" for our behavior is not a popular topic these days. But it is what allows us to change our lives. Years ago I developed a philosophy of looking at my life - if I didn't like how things were, I changed something. I had to do several changes, but eventually I learned how to quickly recognize the consequences of my own actions, and make good choices. Sounds like you have done the same thing.

Re "the man" or whoever we blame for our suffering, there is always a way to walk away from them, isn't there?

menJesus
Mar 19th 2008, 11:17 PM
I agree with you, Brother Mark. I believe this has cost him the votes of the older generation, and they are a large % of the voting public, both black and white.

The people of my, and my father`s, generation will turn away from him because of his affiliation with this preacher man of his - watch and see. Or hide and watch... ;)

danield
Mar 19th 2008, 11:20 PM
As for Rev Wright, I haven't heard enough of his preaching to really know what he is trying to say. It didn't sound good at first. But I can think of many things that the US has done that must put off an awful smell to the Lord. Though I don't wish or desire anyone's damnation or fall, I can certainly understand someone saying that the chickens will come home to roost. But that's not what all I got from the clippings I heard.

How can you say this? Have you not heard any of his clips? Just now I heard him talking down about Natalie Holloway and her Aruba trip because she was white. Have you not heard him say the Lords name in vain while in the pulpit? Have you not heard the hate that this man is preaching? It really angers me. I do not want his damnation, but I sure do want him out of the pulpit and his influence reprimanded so that he could never lead people down the wrong path. I can not believe my eyes when I see him talking on TV!

diffangle
Mar 19th 2008, 11:37 PM
How can you say this? Have you not heard any of his clips? Just now I heard him talking down about Natalie Holloway and her Aruba trip because she was white. Have you not heard him say the Lords name in vain while in the pulpit? Have you not heard the hate that this man is preaching? It really angers me. I do not want his damnation, but I sure do want him out of the pulpit and his influence reprimanded so that he could never lead people down the wrong path. I can not believe my eyes when I see him talking on TV!
I posted about the Natalie Holloway comments a while back...

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=116701

More hatred from Wright. :thumbsdn:

Brother Mark
Mar 19th 2008, 11:42 PM
How can you say this? Have you not heard any of his clips? Just now I heard him talking down about Natalie Holloway and her Aruba trip because she was white. Have you not heard him say the Lords name in vain while in the pulpit? Have you not heard the hate that this man is preaching? It really angers me. I do not want his damnation, but I sure do want him out of the pulpit and his influence reprimanded so that he could never lead people down the wrong path. I can not believe my eyes when I see him talking on TV!

Like I said, I only heard clips. I didn't hear him use God's name in vain. I heard him say "God d*&^ American because...". Have you not heard someone say something similar using different language in your pulpit? How about this...

"God will judge America because of abortion" or "because of _____" fill in the blank for whatever pet sin.

Like I also said though, the clips I heard didn't sound very good. But it is always wise to keep in mind a 30 second sound bite can be made to appear what it is really not. Still, I think the post I wrote above was clear that it didn't seem that this man was preaching against sin as much as he was making a political statement. I am willing to leave the door open to the possibility that the sound bite didn't have all the information the preacher wanted to convey. But again, it sure doesn't sound good!

No. I didn't hear about Holloway. I am just saying, until one hears the entire matter, it is wise not to judge completely. ;)

danield
Mar 19th 2008, 11:57 PM
Wait just one minute Brothermark. Do you not think this man did not know English enough to understand what the combination of those two words meant? He is a preacher and understands it very well. He needs to be on his knees begging forgiveness. When he put those two words together he understood the ramification. How can you defend him? I am not upset about hate speach about whites, there are many blacks that do that and I am not offended at all what they say, but when it is done from the pulpit, it angers me! I can not believe anyone would take up for him? Why are you? It is sickening to see a preacher talking this stuff.

menJesus
Mar 20th 2008, 12:02 AM
How can you say this? Have you not heard any of his clips? Just now I heard him talking down about Natalie Holloway and her Aruba trip because she was white. Have you not heard him say the Lords name in vain while in the pulpit? Have you not heard the hate that this man is preaching? It really angers me. I do not want his damnation, but I sure do want him out of the pulpit and his influence reprimanded so that he could never lead people down the wrong path. I can not believe my eyes when I see him talking on TV!

I would think that by now his congregation believes in what he said as though it was set in stone. :(

menJesus
Mar 20th 2008, 12:05 AM
Wait just one minute Brothermark. Do you not think this man did not know English enough to understand what the combination of those two words meant? He is a preacher and understands it very well. He needs to be on his knees begging forgiveness. When he put those two words together he understood the ramification. How can you defend him? I am not upset about hate speach about whites, there are many blacks that do that and I am not offended at all what they say, but when it is done from the pulpit, it angers me! I can not believe anyone would take up for him? Why are you? It is sickening to see a preacher talking this stuff.

I agree, danield. He knew exactly what he said, and he said exactly what he MEANT.

This is appalling to me, from a "man of God"... I am shocked beyond words here... :(

Brother Mark
Mar 20th 2008, 12:18 AM
Wait just one minute Brothermark. Do you not think this man did not know English enough to understand what the combination of those two words meant? He is a preacher and understands it very well. He needs to be on his knees begging forgiveness. When he put those two words together he understood the ramification. How can you defend him? I am not upset about hate speach about whites, there are many blacks that do that and I am not offended at all what they say, but when it is done from the pulpit, it angers me! I can not believe anyone would take up for him? Why are you? It is sickening to see a preacher talking this stuff.

If you think I am defending him, then you aren't reading my post fully. ;)

danield
Mar 20th 2008, 12:24 AM
"God will judge America because of abortion" or "because of _____" fill in the blank for whatever pet sin.


Let me clearly post how this is so wrong to take up for this man in this way. The two greatest commandments from Christ is to love the lord with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. When someone says God is going to judge America because of XYZ that is in no way disrespect towards the Lord. When we say that America is * because of XYZ that is in no way disrespectful to the lord, but when you put the words together, there is no question that you are taking the lords name in vain. He said it to sensationalize what he was saying. He thought he was “cool”. And it drew cheers from the crowd. I do not care if you are the pope, with a 2 million person congregation cheering you on, if someone puts those two words together knowing that it is a common form of disrespect for the lord you are suppose to worship, it is wrong. As wrong as it could be, and how could anyone take up for him I do not understand. I get sick hearing the commentator on the news say it over and over much less a preacher talk about it to his congregation.

The commentator on Fox (megan) was the first to stop actually saying those words during her intro! Bless her!

Now as for all the comments and lies he has stated about his fellow man, he sets a new low. This is not about a small doctrine mistake. This is not about prosperity teaching which many Christians are up in arms about (I am not one of those that is upset about it) this is about not loving your fellow man. Many of these people have not done anything to offend this preacher, and have not sinned against God, but he goes out of his way to talk down about them. It is just wrong, and should not be supported by anyone who is a Christian including Barrack Obama. If you are not a Christian then don’t worry about it. Accept what he says, but if you care about the Bible, then it should be a big problem.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2008, 12:35 AM
Okay now, let's just take a deep breath here! I haven't seen anyone 'taking up' for that man, alright. Brother Mark just said he hadn't seen enough. Do you know what he's seen? Before yesterday morning in the hotel when the tv just happened to be on MSNBC, I hadn't heard ANYTHING! I don't really watch the news. So, let's not start attacking anyone here. Sound like a plan?

menJesus
Mar 20th 2008, 12:43 AM
danield, I don`t believe Brother Mark is taking up for him. The fruit of the Spirit THRIVES in this man ( BM). I doubt he would say anything negative until he goes and finds out the truth for himself - which is as it should be...

watchinginawe
Mar 20th 2008, 01:14 AM
Put this in context with what his wife said... "this is the first time I have been proud to be an American" or something like that. If they've bought into Wright's theology, it would make sense why she doesn't like this country. 20 years is a long time to hear someone preach and not know his stance. Did anyone notice how the church cheered at those statements? It sure didn't seem to catch the congregation off guard.Maybe Michelle attended more often than Barrack. :)

EarlyCall
Mar 20th 2008, 11:12 AM
A few more thoughts, but first I'd like to repeat something I said earlier in this thread; perhaps it was missed.

Let's say that back in 2004 when Bush was running for president that it was learned he had attended KKK meetings almost every week for twenty years - his wife as well.

Let's also say that at first, as obama did, Bush claimed he wasn't aware of their racist remarks (I think it safe to assume the KKK makes racist remarks at their meetings).

Then let's say that Bush next attempts to claim he was not influenced by the KKK after twenty years of attending their meetings.

Further, Bush then comes out and makes a speech about how we need to rise above racism and come together for unity and condemns the things said and stood for by the KKK.

Now is there someone in this thread that actually wants to try and claim they would believe Bush?

Really?

Then if so, answer a couple questions for me please.

1) Tell me why Bush didn't stop attending the KKK meetings when he first heard such horrible racist remarks? Please make your answer good. Simple excuses won't get you points. It needs to actually be reasonable and believable.

2) Why should we believe words over actions? Words are easy but actions prove intent. Actions follow the heart more closely than do words. Words can be spoken in haste, in anger and what have you, but actions performed over a long period of time and with consistency show intent and condition of the heart (read your bible).

Now, of course other questions can be formulated and asked about this particular, but I think it not necessary.

Some more thoughts.

As for obama's grandmother, prove it obama. She is dead is she not? So I should take his word for it that she made racist remarks about blacks in front of him that made him cringe?

Really obama? It seems to me then that obama was made to cringe by racist remarks made by his grandmother, if even true, but racist remarks about whites made by his pastor were evidently not enough to make him leave. Perhaps he did cringe though. Regardless, for someone claiming he wants to unite whites and blacks and rise above racism, one would think then that he would not be part of such evident racism as evidenced by his pastor. But perhaps obama has learned to cringe with the best of them.

His pastor spews such hatred for whites and yet seemingly is willing to ignore the fact that obama is half white. Hypocrisy anyone? It would seem obama's pastor has anger and hatred for whites and not for blacks but must like the half of obama that is black and hate the other half. I wonder if the "good" pastor would explain that. Or perhaps being half balck is enough for the "good" pastor.

As well, it has been said in this thread by someone that all this fuss is silly, childish and irrelevant. As I said in my example, fictitious to be sure about Bush attending meetings of the KKK for twenty years, I am more than willing to bet the person would not find that silly, childish or irrelevant. Hypocrisy anyone?

Which of you grew up in a Christian home and after twenty years is willing to honestly say you were not influenced? I wouldn't even attempt to claim that. How many non-Christians come on here and make the claim that had any of us been born in a Muslim nation we would most likely be Muslim? Or Hindu if born in India? And yet some want to claim obama wasn't influenced by his pastor.

I do not for a moment believe that. I will tell you why. I've heard enough of this pastor's rantings and ravings to know that he thinks this way. His grandstanding in the pulpit furthers my convictions concerning him. Someone like this no doubt takes most every if not every opportunity to express their convictions when they feel so strongly as he does. This is evidenced by what he says in that it is so drastic and dramatic.

Now, had obama expressed concern, disagreement or caution to his pastor over the years, is it not safe to assume that his pastor would have had a real problem with obama? I think it is safe to assume this. Are we then to believe that obama spoke out against the things his pastor spewed from the pulpit and his pastor had no problem with that? In fact his pastor was willing to marry obama and his wife and baptize their two children? I don't buy that for a moment. His pastor, being the pastor, using the pulpit to spew such hatred, was willing to put up with someone in his church, obama and his wife, that stood against him? Really? Some people will believe anything.

But if such a thing might be true, either obama did not speak out against what his pastor was saying or obama went along with it. And now we are to believe obama when he says he wants to rise above racism and unite whites and blacks? Really? Since when? Since you started to run for president?

Sorry, but any good person, particularly one claiming to be a Christian as obama does, understands and knows that the bible speaks against such hatred of others and would not stay or be involved with such a man as this pastor Wright nor continue to be part of that church. Doesn't obama's actions of staying with this church and being involved with this pastor, his mentor by his own admission signify agreement with the pastor? Or are we to believe obama stood against such things but somehow felt he should still be involved closely with the pastor and in the church?

If the latter is true, then why obama? Unequally yoked anyone? Come out from among them anyone? Know them by their fruits. The company you keep.

If obama cannot make such a simple decision to leave such a church and be done with such a man as the pastor of that church, why should I believe obama can make the really hard decisions of this nation?

I have always wondered why some people allow themselves to be made a fool and duped and led by the nose. I've come to the only conclusion I can come to: they do not mind it if they are made to feel good about themselves in some manner through the process. I think too wishful thinking and hope are involved somehow. But wishful thinking and hoping against reality will not suffice in the end. The piper must be paid regardless. Still, some people seem willing to be caught up in things to their ultimate disadvantage. But, some people are still willing to overlook such things.

I won't be one of them.

My daughter is half black, but her mother and I are white. She is the product of rape by a black man. Should I now spew hatred for blacks as this pastor does for whites? Would this pastor hate my daughter because she is half white? Then he would have to feel the same about obama. Or perhaps he would hate my daughter because both her parents are white. I have to wonder what obama would think of my daughter. Well, I have to wonder what obama would think of my wife and me.

My wife has no hatred for blacks and yet was raped and terrorized by a black man. Should she? Doesn't she have a complaint against blacks? This pastor has the choice of doing right or wrong, and stands behind a pulpit preaching hatred. I don't need someone to tell obama was in agreement with this man for all these years. So was his wife michelle.

Which of you would stay in such a church? Which of you would stay in any assembly of folk preaching such hatred? Don't tell me you are a Christian and spend twenty years in such a hate-filled group of people. Sorry, but that runs contrary to God's word. No, it quite simply does. Excuses to the contrary do not cut it for me.

Sorry obama, but I take you for a liar.

theabaud
Mar 20th 2008, 01:08 PM
We do need to keep in mind that as white Americans, we are extremely fortunate to live in our day and time and not 1860, 1920 or even 1970. Living in this day and time we have been liberated from our racist white roots. It was a sin when the white man assumed that he knew better what to do for America than the indigenous man. It was a sin when white men decided that the value of the black man was little more than a mule. It was a vast sin when men kidnapped people from their homes and brought them across the sea to cultivate a land that had been stolen. It was sin when slavers cast live men and women into the sea, when they cramped them in small berths and fed them sparsly.

Following the emancipation of the slaves white men gave them land and provision for working that land, and then through unjust agriculture programs stole it back. Segregation took hold and men were given respect based on skin color, not character. This was all the bondage of sin. I am thankful that my generation has for the most part cast off the shackles of that sinful existence. I am free from the racism that my Grandfather grew up with, in a time when 15% of all voting age people in America were members of the KKK.

Racism is real, and it is a blatant and obvious sin, a sin that I believe America is growing out of. I do not ignore the the current acts by evil and corrupt men, but our nation is healing. When we face people like Wright, Farrahkan, the New Black Panthers and all these skinheads and rednecks we need to pray that God will deliver them from this wickedness. Those who are in error are in need of ministering to. We ought to minister to them in prayer and love.

I know this is out of place a bit, as I obviously think this is important, it just strikes me how I could have been a militant white supremacist had I been born in 1879 in stead of 1979.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 20th 2008, 01:28 PM
I don't have any racist white roots, Nick. My family on both sides escaped the Nazis. It angers me when I am held de facto accountable for slavery when nobody in my family history had anything to do with it.

theabaud
Mar 20th 2008, 01:33 PM
I don't have any racist white roots, Nick. My family on both sides escaped the Nazis. It angers me when I am held de facto accountable for slavery when nobody in my family history had anything to do with it.
None in mine did either, but probably because we were too poor to own any. Regardless of all of that, you did not have anything to do with it and I did not have anything to do with it and that is but by the grace of God. I think it is silly to give apologies for what my great grandfathers might have done, when it is unlikely any of them would have apologized.

I feel you, we didn't do it, but our country has a racist history we cannot deny. Also I need to clarify, this is not all whites from that time and it certainly was not because they were white. It was an ethnocentric pride that drove much of the destruction Europe wrought on the world, not a genetic predisposition towards violence.

The civil rights movement did not only make the world better for blacks, it made it better for whites too.

daughter
Mar 20th 2008, 01:39 PM
I'm a white Irish woman, and my great grandfather was in fact a slave... so nope, history isn't so simple as it looks at times.

You can't just look at someone and think, "white skin, therefore supremacist slave owning b@tard."

Not saying this is what you're doing at all. But remember, in Deuteronomy God says that the son will not die for his father's sins, nor the father for his sons' sins.

In other words, we're responsible for our own sins, as individuals, not what someone else did, generations ago. I live in England, surrounded by the descendants of people who took advantage of my ancestors in some pretty gruesome ways. I've had fireworks thrown at me, been pelted with stones, faeces and balloons full of urine as a kid.

That doesn't mean all the English are like that, or that I should distrust all English people.

People are people are people... as my Grandad used to say. And my Grandad suffered a lot in his life... he never moaned about it. He just gave it back to God.

That's all any of us can do.

theabaud
Mar 20th 2008, 01:45 PM
I'm a white Irish woman, and my great grandfather was in fact a slave... so nope, history isn't so simple as it looks at times.

You can't just look at someone and think, "white skin, therefore supremacist slave owning b@tard."

Not saying this is what you're doing at all. But remember, in Deuteronomy God says that the son will not die for his father's sins, nor the father for his sons' sins.

In other words, we're responsible for our own sins, as individuals, not what someone else did, generations ago. I live in England, surrounded by the descendants of people who took advantage of my ancestors in some pretty gruesome ways. I've had fireworks thrown at me, been pelted with stones, faeces and balloons full of urine as a kid.

That doesn't mean all the English are like that, or that I should distrust all English people.

People are people are people... as my Grandad used to say. And my Grandad suffered a lot in his life... he never moaned about it. He just gave it back to God.

That's all any of us can do.That is not a disagreement, I was simply putting some things in perspective. The US has a dirty history, and many of our ancestors took part in some nasty stuff. My point is that we ought to be thankful as white Americans that we are not near as likely to racist today as we would have been 100 or even 50 years ago. As such we should see how easy it is to fall into this trap, and rather than having anger for wright, we ought to be showing him compassion.

This is also not to say we should forsake judgment and give Obama a pass. I think that his spirituality is tied up in this cultic America hating philosophy, and at the end of the day that will guide him in office.

theabaud
Mar 20th 2008, 01:48 PM
I'm a white Irish woman, and my great grandfather was in fact a slave... so nope, history isn't so simple as it looks at times.

You can't just look at someone and think, "white skin, therefore supremacist slave owning b@tard."

Not saying this is what you're doing at all. But remember, in Deuteronomy God says that the son will not die for his father's sins, nor the father for his sons' sins.

In other words, we're responsible for our own sins, as individuals, not what someone else did, generations ago. I live in England, surrounded by the descendants of people who took advantage of my ancestors in some pretty gruesome ways. I've had fireworks thrown at me, been pelted with stones, faeces and balloons full of urine as a kid.

That doesn't mean all the English are like that, or that I should distrust all English people.

People are people are people... as my Grandad used to say. And my Grandad suffered a lot in his life... he never moaned about it. He just gave it back to God.

That's all any of us can do.I believe the Patrick was an Irish slave. That man was a phenomenal Christian.

menJesus
Mar 20th 2008, 01:51 PM
The thing that astonishes me is that the white people are more willing to let the past go, than the blacks. But the truth is, white people are much more accepting of blacks, than blacks are of white people... sad but true.

We all have opportunity in this country, black/white, married/single, able/disabled, and we can either take it and go forward, or sit and be a victim of our circumstances for the rest of our lives.

I have lived and worked around black people for years, and I see way too many of them who are willing to accept a future going nowhere because of what happened to them, back in history. This is too sad for words...

Free Indeed
Mar 20th 2008, 01:53 PM
Scripture tells us that we are no longer to focus on differences like being Jew or Greek, slave or free, and I believe if Paul were writing today he would also say, black or white. That a preacher would be preaching such babble from the pulpit is ridiculous. Praising a nation of Islam leader as one of the greatest religious leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries. I guess the fact that he rejects Yeshua as Messiah doesn't count to the rev. :hmm:

I never said I agreed with Wright. I don't even agree with my own pastor more than 60% of the time. My point is that Wright is not running for president.



Asking God to 'damn' America? Come on! You can defend that?

Well, it's certainly not politically correct. But what does the Bible say about a materialistic, greed-fueled Babylon? Does God say He will bless such a place?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2008, 02:06 PM
I never said I agreed with Wright. I don't even agree with my own pastor more than 60% of the time. My point is that Wright is not running for president.If you do not agree with your pastor more than 60% of the time :o you should think of finding a new pastor. :yes: A pastor that you position yourself under should be someone that you agree with most of the time. How else can you follow them as they follow Messiah if you don't think they're following Messiah? :hmm:

diffangle
Mar 20th 2008, 02:11 PM
[quote=Knight Templar;1578838]I never said I agreed with Wright. I don't even agree with my own pastor more than 60% of the time. My point is that Wright is not running for president.


But he did sit on Obama's Advisory Commitee and was his long time spiritual advisor.



Well, it's certainly not politically correct. But what does the Bible say about a materialistic, greed-fueled Babylon? Does God say He will bless such a place?

Does anyone know about Jeremiah Wright's wealth? We know that Obama isn't doing too bad in the materialistic wealth department.

daughter
Mar 20th 2008, 02:23 PM
Does anyone know about Jeremiah Wright's wealth? We know that Obama isn't doing too bad in the materialistic wealth department.

Didn't you hear the reverend? Obama's a poor black man. Just like Jesus...

diffangle
Mar 20th 2008, 02:39 PM
Didn't you hear the reverend? Obama's a poor black man. Just like Jesus...
Oh yeah, how could I forget. :lol:

EarlyCall
Mar 20th 2008, 04:48 PM
I never said I agreed with Wright. I don't even agree with my own pastor more than 60% of the time. My point is that Wright is not running for president.




Well, it's certainly not politically correct. But what does the Bible say about a materialistic, greed-fueled Babylon? Does God say He will bless such a place?

I can't imagine God not punishing america for its many sins, but don't you think it is batter to try and do the right thing and ask for and hope for God's blessings as opposed to doing the wrong thing and asking God to damn the very nation you live in?

I can only conclude pastor wright hasn't considered the fact that if God damns this nation, wright goes along with it. We all will.

Each one of us must either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. It is in the collective then that wrongs are righted and problems resolved when one speaks of a nation. Each individual's participation in the whole plays an important part. One person starts a fire and it usually tends to spread.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 20th 2008, 04:49 PM
Good post, Daughter. So my question is this. If the Deut says that, why then is there a Christian movement of racism based on the sins of the Father from many generations ago?

daughter
Mar 20th 2008, 05:01 PM
I believe the Patrick was an Irish slave. That man was a phenomenal Christian.
He was a welshman, taking into slavery by the Irish. Instead of hating on his previous oppressors, when he finally got free, he went back to them and brought the gospel all over the island of Ireland. The early celtic church was phenomenal.

As you say, he was a great Christian, and a fine example to us all. (I don't think he was a poor black guy though.)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2008, 05:31 PM
Good post, Daughter. So my question is this. If the Deut says that, why then is there a Christian movement of racism based on the sins of the Father from many generations ago?The words 'Christian' and 'racism' should not be proper to use together. Are you speaking of those who may 'call' themselves Christian that are racist against Jews? If so, it's wrong too! ;)

God Bless!

Free Indeed
Mar 20th 2008, 07:02 PM
If you do not agree with your pastor more than 60% of the time :o you should think of finding a new pastor. :yes:

That would be hard: I don't agree with *any* pastor more than 60% of the time. Usually, it's a lot less. ;)



How else can you follow them as they follow Messiah if you don't think they're following Messiah? :hmm:

I have no doubt that my pastor is sincere in his calling, so I have no problem with it. He is sort of unique as an Episcopalian minister because he believes in a literal 6 day creation, and does not believe in evolution. Most Episcopalians, including myself, accept evolution. There are other differences, but we agree where it counts.

Free Indeed
Mar 20th 2008, 07:04 PM
I can't imagine God not punishing america for its many sins, but don't you think it is batter to try and do the right thing and ask for and hope for God's blessings as opposed to doing the wrong thing and asking God to damn the very nation you live in?

Yes.


I can only conclude pastor wright hasn't considered the fact that if God damns this nation, wright goes along with it. We all will.

I interpreted his sermon to mean that God is currently "damning" America, not that he wants God to damn America.



Each one of us must either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. It is in the collective then that wrongs are righted and problems resolved when one speaks of a nation. Each individual's participation in the whole plays an important part. One person starts a fire and it usually tends to spread.

I agree completely.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2008, 08:14 PM
That would be hard: I don't agree with *any* pastor more than 60% of the time. Usually, it's a lot less. ;)

I have no doubt that my pastor is sincere in his calling, so I have no problem with it. He is sort of unique as an Episcopalian minister because he believes in a literal 6 day creation, and does not believe in evolution. Most Episcopalians, including myself, accept evolution. There are other differences, but we agree where it counts.So, as he preaches from the pulpit, you disagree with 40% of what he says. That seems quite excessive to me. :hmm: 60% is a failing grade in just about any school to which you can go.


I interpreted his sermon to mean that God is currently "damning" America, not that he wants God to damn America.God is d@*?ing and God d@*? are two completely different tenses. He said what he said, and hey.....it's on tape!

NHL Fever
Mar 21st 2008, 02:14 AM
Until I get a full transcript of what was actually said, so that there is some kind of context, its really hard to know what he meant by it. I've heard lots of pastors say God is cursing a nation, even their own nation (Canada or US) because of sins or anti-God policies.

John McCain earlier today condemned a video put out by one of his staff which was critical of Obama and showing video of Wright in it. For that I give props to McCain, attempting to run a positive campaign at least for now.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/20/mccain-camp-suspends-staffer-over-wright-video/

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 21st 2008, 03:02 AM
The words 'Christian' and 'racism' should not be proper to use together. Are you speaking of those who may 'call' themselves Christian that are racist against Jews? If so, it's wrong too! ;)

God Bless!

It can be applied to them too, but specifically, I was inferring to those who use slavery from over 100 years ago to justify racial hatred of today. I had something else to say, and it was really good too, but I'm drinking some wine and totally forgot.

Oh yeah.

I think Jesus was as he needed to be in order to get his message across to man. Mankind sucks, but he was able to show us somthing good about ourselves, and that's important. I have yet to find the passage in the Bible that says what race Jesus was, this is significant because Jesus' race is itself not significant at all. To say "Jesus was a poor black man," is racially charged in every sense of the phrase. Jesus was the Son of God, the Saviour of Un-Worthy Humanity and so on and so forth. It offends me on a spiritual level to have that saviour degraded for the sake of inciting racial hatred and bigotry.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 21st 2008, 10:39 AM
It can be applied to them too, but specifically, I was inferring to those who use slavery from over 100 years ago to justify racial hatred of today. I had something else to say, and it was really good too, but I'm drinking some wine and totally forgot.

Oh yeah.

I think Jesus was as he needed to be in order to get his message across to man. Mankind sucks, but he was able to show us somthing good about ourselves, and that's important. I have yet to find the passage in the Bible that says what race Jesus was, this is significant because Jesus' race is itself not significant at all. To say "Jesus was a poor black man," is racially charged in every sense of the phrase. Jesus was the Son of God, the Saviour of Un-Worthy Humanity and so on and so forth. It offends me on a spiritual level to have that saviour degraded for the sake of inciting racial hatred and bigotry.I agree. As to the words 'Christian' and 'racist' I was merely stating that they SHOULD not be proper to use together. If someone is truly a follower of Yeshua, they should not be racist! ;)

God Bless!

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 21st 2008, 12:37 PM
Yeah, I know. I'm glad we both agree! :hug:

diffangle
Mar 21st 2008, 02:02 PM
I have yet to find the passage in the Bible that says what race Jesus was, this is significant because Jesus' race is itself not significant at all.

Not to be a stickler, :spin: but don't the Scriptures say He was a Jew from the tribe of Judah and that salvation is of the Jews(Yahushua)?


Luk 3:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=3&verse=33&version=kjv#33) Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,

Jhn 4:22 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=4&v=22&t=KJV#22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Free Indeed
Mar 21st 2008, 02:08 PM
So, as he preaches from the pulpit, you disagree with 40% of what he says.

No, I didn't say "from the pulpit". He follows the traditional Anglican Liturgy to the letter, and does not try to cram his personal views down anyone's throats.

As I mentioned, I don't agree with Jeremiah Wright, but I do support his right to say what his said, even if it's bombastic and over the top. This is America, and the man can say what he wants.

But to me, it's all sort of silly. Obama's opponents are having trouble digging up dirt on him, so they go after his friend, and try to make Obama guilty by association. In formal logic, this constitutes what is known as the association ad hominem fallacy, and carries no logical merit.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 21st 2008, 02:10 PM
Not to be a stickler, :spin: but don't the Scriptures say He was a Jew from the tribe of Judah and that salvation is of the Jews(Yahushua)?

Luk 3:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=3&verse=33&version=kjv#33) Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,

Jhn 4:22 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=4&v=22&t=KJV#22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.I think they meant 'race', as in color, which is really a misnomer since there is only one race....the human race! ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 21st 2008, 02:10 PM
Not to be a stickler, :spin: but don't the Scriptures say He was a Jew from the tribe of Judah and that salvation is of the Jews(Yahushua)?


Luk 3:33 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=3&verse=33&version=kjv#33) Which was [the son] of Aminadab, which was [the son] of Aram, which was [the son] of Esrom, which was [the son] of Phares, which was [the son] of Juda,

Jhn 4:22 (http://cf.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=4&v=22&t=KJV#22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Yeah, but I was talking about skin color, sorry I should have clarified.

*edit*


But to me, it's all sort of silly. Obama's opponents are having trouble digging up dirt on him, so they go after his friend, and try to make Obama guilty by association. In formal logic, this constitutes what is known as the association ad hominem fallacy, and carries no logical merit.I dunno about you, but none of my friends are people that are ideological opposites from me. Again, it isn't guilt by association, but it is a sense of wonder as to how much they are alike. If Obama believes that God should damn America, what business does he have running for president, particularly when he doesn't have the most Christian value-orientated platform that he could?

Nobody is saying that Obama is a bad and horrible person because of what his friend is saying, we are simply questioning how much of his influence has rubbed off. It is valid, and the Bush KKK analogy, which no one has bothered to address, would be valid too.

I think your getting caught up in believing that this is an attack on the evil democrats and muslim Obama, but I really don't think it is, at least not from my standpoint. Another issue is this: Why are Rev Wright/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson allowed to say whatever they want, but Don Imus and that woman from the golf channel lose their careers and are forever branded with the ultimate hate-label: Racist?

diffangle
Mar 21st 2008, 02:35 PM
It is valid, and the Bush KKK analogy, which no one has bothered to address, would be valid too.


I used this example with one of my clients the day after Obama's speech, only I used McCain and David Duke as an example. My client was saying he wasn't going to hold someone responsible for what his pastor says, and I asked him if it were McCain attending a church for 20 years where Duke was the pastor and he had him as his spiritual advisor and had him on his advisory commitee would people have a right to freak out... he said, "oh well that's different, David Duke is a nut." :hmm: :rolleyes:

Free Indeed
Mar 21st 2008, 03:28 PM
I dunno about you, but none of my friends are people that are ideological opposites from me.

Why not? Do you base your friendships upon ideology?

As for me, I'm fairly liberal Democrat. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and Jean-Paul Sartre was a Communist. I disagree with both of their political ideologies, but personally they were both pretty good guys, and I could have been friends with both.



Again, it isn't guilt by association, but it is a sense of wonder as to how much they are alike. If Obama believes that God should damn America, what business does he have running for president, particularly when he doesn't have the most Christian value-orientated platform that he could?

This is why it is guilt by association, and is a fallacy in reasoning. Obama has never said anything remotely similar to "God should damn America", but you infer that he believes it.



I think your getting caught up in believing that this is an attack on the evil democrats and muslim Obama, but I really don't think it is, at least not from my standpoint. Another issue is this: Why are Rev Wright/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson allowed to say whatever they want, but Don Imus and that woman from the golf channel lose their careers and are forever branded with the ultimate hate-label: Racist?

In the interpretation of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has differentiated between "political speech", which is protected, and speech that is not. For example, I do not have a First Amendment right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

I'm not saying Imus' speech is not protected, but obviously, there's no political merit in calling someone a "nappy headed ho". I oppose censorship, but I also recognize the right of an employer to terminate someone's employment after making such a statement on an airway it itself owns.

theabaud
Mar 21st 2008, 04:39 PM
Why not? Do you base your friendships upon ideology?

As for me, I'm fairly liberal Democrat. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and Jean-Paul Sartre was a Communist. I disagree with both of their political ideologies, but personally they were both pretty good guys, and I could have been friends with both.I would probably like Obama. He seems like a pretty decent fellow, but I do not enjoy the company of any white supremacist/ Racist. I think that is the divide Clav is making.





This is why it is guilt by association, and is a fallacy in reasoning. Obama has never said anything remotely similar to "God should damn America", but you infer that he believes it.



Obama is not the most patriotic guy around, and I do believe that he has some of the leanings of his pastor. I do not believe it is as extreme as his pastor, but his behavior has not reflected a deep love for country.



In the interpretation of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has differentiated between "political speech", which is protected, and speech that is not. For example, I do not have a First Amendment right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

I'm not saying Imus' speech is not protected, but obviously, there's no political merit in calling someone a "nappy headed ho". I oppose censorship, but I also recognize the right of an employer to terminate someone's employment after making such a statement on an airway it itself owns.Well, there was context to the nappy head ho bit, which was not appropriate, but really not all that bad considering what his job is.

Regardless of this, I agree that his employer could fire him if he wanted to, and that this has nothing to do with free speech because it is a private matter.

Political speech is not the only protected speech by the way, all speech unless deemed to be obscene, untruthful to the hurt of another, or incites violence is protected, and the line that is drawn is very loose regarding those other two as well.

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 21st 2008, 06:30 PM
Why not? Do you base your friendships upon ideology?

As for me, I'm fairly liberal Democrat. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and Jean-Paul Sartre was a Communist. I disagree with both of their political ideologies, but personally they were both pretty good guys, and I could have been friends with both.




This is why it is guilt by association, and is a fallacy in reasoning. Obama has never said anything remotely similar to "God should damn America", but you infer that he believes it.



In the interpretation of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has differentiated between "political speech", which is protected, and speech that is not. For example, I do not have a First Amendment right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

I'm not saying Imus' speech is not protected, but obviously, there's no political merit in calling someone a "nappy headed ho". I oppose censorship, but I also recognize the right of an employer to terminate someone's employment after making such a statement on an airway it itself owns.

No, I don't choose friends based solely on ideology, but it would be a big factor. But, if I, a more than mildly patriotic individual, were placed next to a very friendly wonderful person...who openly spits on the flag that I have bled and shed blood for, I would be in such a situation and I know I could not support that nonsense. Likewise, I could never find myself in the company of racists, willingly, my father-in-law is a good example. 20+something years in the Army, was a jumpmaster (managed to skip out of every single war the 82nd was involved in from Vietnam to Desert Storm, though) but is one of the rudest and most racist people I have ever seen. We'll be in a resturant eating, everything okay enough, then some black people come in and he throws a fit going on about how "Spooks have taken over" and N*ger this and that and blah blah blah.

I hate spending time with him, but if we don't it causes problems.


I don't infer he believes God should damn America, but I believe he'll quietly let someone say it, maybe nod his head, and not make any form of correction or show any sign of distaste...and this is who we want to run the country? Does anyone think a president can make so much change that these problems would simply go away? Can you "solve" poverty? Can you "solve" war? Can you "solve" stupidity? Can you stop the rain? Again, I don't know if he agrees with this or not, but it makes me question, and isn't questioning our authority figures something we should be doing in the first place? I would question any person who would associate with nefarious figures and this is no different than when Ron Paul started getting donations from white supremacists, oh boy did everyone go crazy on that!


I understand firing Imus, but was Imus fired because he did something wrong, or was he fired because Al Sharpton fired him by proxy? Same with that chick from the golf channel, there's a thread in Contro, I think on that.

Anyways, it's always good to talk with you, you're a pretty smart guy and stuff, I don't want you to think that this is a personal attack from me. It isn't, I would like nothing better than for none of this garbage to happen.

Follow_Me_Infantry
Mar 22nd 2008, 01:34 PM
The 'slave mentality' IS the thorn. I do not have the 'slave mentality'. 'The man' does NOT determine my existence. You know what? Not everyone is going to like me. So what! If they want to follow me around the store, who cares. Even if there is an employer that wouldn't want to hire me because I'm black, guess what? I'll find the one that will. If no one will, then I'll find some product or service to sell and I'll work for myself. If no one will buy my product or service then I will die but guess what? I will die free without the thorn of the 'slave mentality'! Look at the Jews. They have been hated by so many but that 'slave mentality' does not consume them. As long as some person or government or social program is what you think controls your existence, that thorn will still be there. It is only when each one becomes accountable for his own actions without any need to blame anyone or anything for perceived failures, that the thorn can be removed so the healing process can begin. The sad part is that many are so comfortable with the thorn that they don't know how to exist without it. :cry:

God Bless!

This is, bar none, THE post of the year!

It's the exact same way I think about being persecuted and/or ridiculed for a faith in Christ.

You, S2S, are one wise, mature lady of quality character!

Clavicula_Nox
Mar 22nd 2008, 02:33 PM
I agree completely.

Fenris
Mar 24th 2008, 12:30 PM
Another piece by Steyn:


Post ‘Post-Racial Candidate’
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the campaign trail.

By Mark Steyn

‘I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.

Or is he just saying it? In which case, he’s profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, you’ll know that it’s within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If you’re told that it’s just whitey’s latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, it’s out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.

Before the speech, Slate’s Mickey Kaus advised Senator Obama to give us a Sister Souljah moment: “There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births,” he wrote. “But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright’s most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races.” Indeed. It makes no difference to white folks when a black pastor inflicts kook genocide theories on his congregation: The victims are those in his audience who make the mistake of believing him. The Reverend Wright has a hugely popular church with over 8,000 members, and Senator Obama assures us that his pastor does good work by “reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDs.” But maybe he wouldn’t have to quite so much “reaching out” to do and maybe there wouldn’t be quite so many black Americans “suffering from HIV/AIDs” if the likes of Wright weren’t peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community.

Nonetheless, last week, Barack Obama told America: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus must command our respect? Let us take the senator at his word when he says he chanced not to be present on AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black liberation theology going on at his church. But Obama did something far more audacious: Instead of distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that the guy is not just his crazy uncle but America’s, too.

To do this, he promoted a false equivalence. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” he continued. “A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” Well, according to the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on her bus, and he wasn’t merely “passing by.” When the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life.” In Philadelphia, Senator Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his gran’ma for his life. In the days that followed, Obama’s interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less complicated villain: Unlike the Reverend Wright, she doesn’t want God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaeda, but on the other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man on the bus. It’s surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann on MSNBC names her his “Worst Person In The World.” Asked about the sin of racism beating within Gran’ma’s breast, Obama said on TV that “she’s a typical white person.”

Which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing the supposed “post-racial” candidate ought to be saying, but let that pass. How “typically white” is Obama’s grandmother? She is the woman who raised him — that’s to say, she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally. Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn’t seem very likely. She does then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America. But what of her equivalent (as Obama’s speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a “typical black person”? One would hope not. A century and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil Rights Act, the Reverend Wright promotes victimization theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of slavery or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

But America is not Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank — for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama’s choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment — to claim that, given America’s history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright’s generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn’t that — what’s the word? — racist? So much for the post-racial candidate.

Fenris
Mar 24th 2008, 05:15 PM
From NRO's blog:


Are We Lynchers and Crucifiers?



Victor Davis Hanson


Rev. Moss, the new pastor at Sen. Obama's Trinity Church, likens the media storm over Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American remarks to a lynching and crucifixion; the right Reverend Wright takes the role of the Holy Man that was figuratively put on the cross by the contemporary American Romans, who in Wright’s previous formulation were simply the ancient counterparts of modern-day “whites.”

The Rev. Moss and his congregation fail to see that, being in America, they are fortunately free to preach, listen to, attend, or subsidize all the lunacy that Rev. Wright or his successors or ancillaries can dish out.

The issue, however, for 300 million other Americans who do not attend Trinity, is different, but simple —should we vote for the next President of the United States who, being forewarned, chooses to stick with such a congregation, and of whose sanctification of such venom by the very fact of his weekly presence in, and financial support to, Wright’s ministry, we know very little?

Once the mesmerized reaction to the speech among liberal elites calms down, Obama’s team will grasp the various problems their candidate has created that won’t go away. For the next 30 Sundays until election time, the press will watch and wait to see whether the Obamas attend their normal services at Trinity and what is said; or should they — as this Sunday — not attend, what was said in their absence.

Rev. Moss’s interviews and sermons concerning Wright suggest that he is in complete agreement with his former pastor’s views, and will continue to promulgate them, albeit perhaps with less profanity and slander. And that too will pose a problem for Obama — after just assuring the nation that (a) he finds Wright’s speech “controversial” and some of it “unacceptable”, he will remain loyal to his church that (b) not only finds Wright perfectly acceptable and hardly controversial, but feels America’s reaction to him was a lynching and crucifixion.

To what degree all this causes problems for Obama in the closing primary season, deadlocked with a rival, but wounded, liberal Clinton, will be amplified ten-fold in the general election against McCain. The immediate effect is that every time Obama gets into his stump speech about transcending race, coming together, and shunning the old voices of racial divisiveness, among the clapping and hysteria, there will be a notable hiatus, a pause for a bit, as the audiences, if even for a second or two, suddenly realize that Obama is preaching to the country to do what he himself certainly will not.

Free Indeed
Mar 26th 2008, 03:47 PM
My Take On Jeremiah Wright

by Rev. Dan Harper


Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired minister of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, strikes me as the best kind of prophetic preacher, someone who speaks without sugar-coating his moral and religious message for the comfort of his listeners. Jeremiah Wright now has the misfortune of being Barack Obama’s former minister, and Wright is being trashed because he preached a prophetic message, a few seconds of which have been replayed as sound bites on national media in recent days.
But preachers have to answer to religious standards, not political standards. We are not bound to preach patriotism for the United States, we are bound to preach the permanent truths that we find in our religious traditions. It may not be politically acceptable to do so, but we preachers at times may be called to point out that our country cannot legitimately take the moral high ground until we face our own moral failings with candor. And we prophetic preachers may find ourselves called to proclaim, for example, that ongoing racism demonstrates that some white Americans do not treat their neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. No one likes to hear that they have moral failings; this is one reason why some of the things we preachers say are not appreciated.
Politicians, on the other hand, have a very different task from preachers. Politicians do not speak prophetically; they speak in order to build political consensus. As a preacher, I am not surprised when I hear Barack Obama trashing Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Wright preaches a religious truth: Our country has done moral wrongs, and those of us who are religious persons need to engage in repentance and forgiveness for those wrongs. Obama’s political truth is different; he needs to distance himself from Wright and build a political consensus.
It should be obvious by now that I’d rather hear Jeremiah Wright preach than Barack Obama speak. As a preacher, I might want to take Obama to task for sugar-coating our country’s moral failings. But then, I guess I should accept that he’s only a politician and thus is in the business of sugar-coating moral truths (from my point of view, anyway).
One last point: I wonder why we have not heard about Hillary Clinton’s minister, and John McCain’s minister. If I had a presidential candidate in my congregation, I trust they would be embarrassed by some of the moral stands I have taken; if they weren’t embarrassed, I would take that to mean that I had been sugar-coating moral truths.

theabaud
Mar 26th 2008, 04:06 PM
My Take On Jeremiah Wright

by Rev. Dan Harper


Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired minister of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, strikes me as the best kind of prophetic preacher, someone who speaks without sugar-coating his moral and religious message for the comfort of his listeners. Jeremiah Wright now has the misfortune of being Barack Obama’s former minister, and Wright is being trashed because he preached a prophetic message, a few seconds of which have been replayed as sound bites on national media in recent days.
But preachers have to answer to religious standards, not political standards. We are not bound to preach patriotism for the United States, we are bound to preach the permanent truths that we find in our religious traditions. It may not be politically acceptable to do so, but we preachers at times may be called to point out that our country cannot legitimately take the moral high ground until we face our own moral failings with candor. And we prophetic preachers may find ourselves called to proclaim, for example, that ongoing racism demonstrates that some white Americans do not treat their neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. No one likes to hear that they have moral failings; this is one reason why some of the things we preachers say are not appreciated.
Politicians, on the other hand, have a very different task from preachers. Politicians do not speak prophetically; they speak in order to build political consensus. As a preacher, I am not surprised when I hear Barack Obama trashing Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Wright preaches a religious truth: Our country has done moral wrongs, and those of us who are religious persons need to engage in repentance and forgiveness for those wrongs. Obama’s political truth is different; he needs to distance himself from Wright and build a political consensus.
It should be obvious by now that I’d rather hear Jeremiah Wright preach than Barack Obama speak. As a preacher, I might want to take Obama to task for sugar-coating our country’s moral failings. But then, I guess I should accept that he’s only a politician and thus is in the business of sugar-coating moral truths (from my point of view, anyway).
One last point: I wonder why we have not heard about Hillary Clinton’s minister, and John McCain’s minister. If I had a presidential candidate in my congregation, I trust they would be embarrassed by some of the moral stands I have taken; if they weren’t embarrassed, I would take that to mean that I had been sugar-coating moral truths.I actually agree largely with that. I think Religiously speaking he is wrong on the account of race, but his strong convictions about our country are his and not ours to judge. I don't even agree with the commentators who say that his statement of "g-d america" is taking the Lords name in vain, he is after all using the term properly. I don't agree though that blessings and cursing should proceed from the same mouth. regardless, that is his pulpit, not mine. People should lay off Wright.

I do however think that Obama can be judged as a presidential candidate for his religious connections. The goal of a church is to see people convert, and in this churches case this conversion is not just to Christ, but to a social gospel that no doubt effects how Obama will make decisions. I think it is very valid.

Fenris
Mar 26th 2008, 05:02 PM
It may not be politically acceptable to do so, but we preachers at times may be called to point out that our country cannot legitimately take the moral high ground until we face our own moral failings with candor.

What an amazing excuse to be a racist. "It's OK to hate white people and make up lies about them, because they need moral instruction".

diffangle
Mar 26th 2008, 05:10 PM
What an amazing excuse to be a racist. "It's OK to hate white people and make up lies about them, because they need moral instruction".
Yes... God d#*% the KKKA for the evil white men who inject people with AIDS and drugs.:rolleyes:

Fenris
Mar 26th 2008, 05:17 PM
Yes... God d#*% the KKKA for the evil white men who inject people with AIDS and drugs.:rolleyes:
And Israel is a dirty word, because no one needs more moral instruction than those Jews.:rofl:

Fenris
Mar 26th 2008, 05:27 PM
Since I just said that, see the article starting on page 8 of this PDF: http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf

ProjectPeter
Mar 26th 2008, 05:45 PM
The sad thing is... especially here in the South... this is said in many a pulpit on many a Sunday. Nothing new with that sort of rhetoric. Add to that the ones that candy coat their message but in fact say the same thing (just add sugar)... it happens more than most folks care or even dare to admit.

Fenris
Mar 26th 2008, 06:11 PM
The sad thing is... especially here in the South... this is said in many a pulpit on many a Sunday. Nothing new with that sort of rhetoric. Add to that the ones that candy coat their message but in fact say the same thing (just add sugar)... it happens more than most folks care or even dare to admit.Erm what things specifically?

ProjectPeter
Mar 26th 2008, 06:19 PM
The white man verses the black man attitude. Many folk believe everything that this pastor preaches if they were to tell you truthfully. That is exactly why there isn't a MONSTER uproar about all this. The press knows it. Obama knows it. Hillary knows it too although she is so behind right now that she'll use it if there is even a remote chance that it would derail Obama.

What a lot of folks don't know about me is that I was a pastor here in Atlanta with a black church. My family was the only white people in the place at first. I've heard it many a time and in the other black churches where I would visit to preach... you would hear it there too. This is ABSOLUTELY nothing novel. It is just seen now because Obama goes there and it is ammo politically. It is wrong... NO DOUBT about that. But many act as if they are shocked it goes on. They are either foolish and playing games... or ignorant... one or the two.

I know Sean Hannity personally and have shared several lunches with him and Newt Gingrich in times past. Sean knows this stuff goes on better than most folks. He was a radio host in Alabama for years before coming to Atlanta and then New York. His "shock and awe" is about as phoney as Hillary is honest. ;)

Free Indeed
Mar 26th 2008, 06:22 PM
no one needs more moral instruction than those Jews.:rofl:

Only the Republican ones. And maybe Joe Lieberman.

:P

Fenris
Mar 27th 2008, 01:54 PM
Antisemites just love Obama:

(From Slate)

The Obama Endorsement You Haven't Heard About

This election cycle has seen its share of kooky endorsers whose support the candidates would rather not have. But the latest celebrity to support Obama makes Louis Farrakhan look like Ted Kennedy.

The hugely popular Egyptian pop singer Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his controversial political songs and outrageous style, will soon release a new track celebrating the end of Bush's presidency—and endorsing Obama. In an interview last week with Dar Al-Hayat, Rahim said that Obama is (roughly translated) “a good man, kindhearted, and better than Bush.”

Rahim, also known by his nickname “Shaabolla,” gained international notoriety in 2000 when he released the song “I Hate Israel.” (The song’s subtitle, “But I love Amr Moussa,” refers to Egypt's former foreign minister and head of the Arab League.) Since then, he’s had a rocky relationship with Egypt’s censors. They allowed “Israel” to be broadcast but banned his follow-up tune praising Osama Bin Laden. (Its chorus: "Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Laden.") Other songs he has rolled out include “Hey People, It Was Only a Tower” after 9/11, “Don't Hit Iraq” in 2003, and “We Are All Out of Patience” about the Mohammed cartoon controversy in 2006.

His new song, titled “Bye-Bye Bush,” doesn’t come out till next week, but Rahim provided the lyrics to the first verse to Dar Al-Hayat:

Before leaving, Bush wants to turn the world into a mess,
Since he is a bad omen, as if he was born in a fight,
Cursing you, Bush, or your father doesn't suffice,
It was a disastrous, black day when you were elected …

Back in 2003, Slate’s Lee Smith argued that popular music is “the most powerful form of expression” in the Arab world, which is why governments use it so often for propaganda. Pop songs have played a critical role during events like the 1919 revolution, the coup of 1952, the 1973 war with Israel, and President Mubarak’s “election” in 2005. In the past few years, Rahim has become synonymous with this kind of “engaged”—or politically conscious—music. In other words, a lot of people are going to hear this song. (We'll try to post a copy of the song once it's available.)

Some commentators, most notably Andrew Sullivan, have made the case that a President Obama would change the way the world looks at America. The corollary to that, however, is that Obama would also draw a lot of supporters whose views he and most Americans consider abhorrent. Jeremiah Wright, for all his disturbing remarks, never said, “It was only a tower.” Then again, Barack Obama has probably never heard of Shabaan Abdel Rahim.

ProjectPeter
Mar 27th 2008, 02:00 PM
Antisemites just love Obama:

(From Slate)

The Obama Endorsement You Haven't Heard About

This election cycle has seen its share of kooky endorsers whose support the candidates would rather not have. But the latest celebrity to support Obama makes Louis Farrakhan look like Ted Kennedy.

The hugely popular Egyptian pop singer Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his controversial political songs and outrageous style, will soon release a new track celebrating the end of Bush's presidency—and endorsing Obama. In an interview last week with Dar Al-Hayat, Rahim said that Obama is (roughly translated) “a good man, kindhearted, and better than Bush.”

Rahim, also known by his nickname “Shaabolla,” gained international notoriety in 2000 when he released the song “I Hate Israel.” (The song’s subtitle, “But I love Amr Moussa,” refers to Egypt's former foreign minister and head of the Arab League.) Since then, he’s had a rocky relationship with Egypt’s censors. They allowed “Israel” to be broadcast but banned his follow-up tune praising Osama Bin Laden. (Its chorus: "Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Laden.") Other songs he has rolled out include “Hey People, It Was Only a Tower” after 9/11, “Don't Hit Iraq” in 2003, and “We Are All Out of Patience” about the Mohammed cartoon controversy in 2006.

His new song, titled “Bye-Bye Bush,” doesn’t come out till next week, but Rahim provided the lyrics to the first verse to Dar Al-Hayat:

Before leaving, Bush wants to turn the world into a mess,
Since he is a bad omen, as if he was born in a fight,
Cursing you, Bush, or your father doesn't suffice,
It was a disastrous, black day when you were elected …

Back in 2003, Slate’s Lee Smith argued that popular music is “the most powerful form of expression” in the Arab world, which is why governments use it so often for propaganda. Pop songs have played a critical role during events like the 1919 revolution, the coup of 1952, the 1973 war with Israel, and President Mubarak’s “election” in 2005. In the past few years, Rahim has become synonymous with this kind of “engaged”—or politically conscious—music. In other words, a lot of people are going to hear this song. (We'll try to post a copy of the song once it's available.)

Some commentators, most notably Andrew Sullivan, have made the case that a President Obama would change the way the world looks at America. The corollary to that, however, is that Obama would also draw a lot of supporters whose views he and most Americans consider abhorrent. Jeremiah Wright, for all his disturbing remarks, never said, “It was only a tower.” Then again, Barack Obama has probably never heard of Shabaan Abdel Rahim.
Yeah well.... folks buy that mess so honestly... I figure they are going to get what they deserve. Let's here him sing the praises when all that money he makes isn't so much any longer because taxes will go through the roof and ain't none of the economy going to get any better.

Fenris
Mar 27th 2008, 02:04 PM
But the world will love us again! :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Mar 27th 2008, 02:09 PM
But the world will love us again! :rolleyes:
Not in this age my friend. Not in this age.

Fenris
Mar 27th 2008, 02:27 PM
Not in this age my friend. Not in this age.
Sad but true.

Same goes for Israel.

Fenris
Mar 27th 2008, 02:55 PM
Another winner working for Obama:


McPeak on Display By Robert M. Goldberg (editor@spectator.org) Published 3/24/2008 12:07:43 AM


Last week, Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman Merrill "Tony" McPeak accused former President Bill Clinton of "using divisive tactics and unfairly trying to question Barack Obama's patriotism." McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force, previously supported Howard Dean and then John Kerry. He has campaigned for Obama and cut commercials claiming that Obama has the "right stuff" to be Commander in Chief. His job is to burnish Obama's image as a guy tough enough to be President. So who better to go after Bill Clinton and get the Obama campaign back on offense?

In off-the-cuff remarks to reporters Friday he even compared the former president's comments with the actions of Joseph McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator.

"I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it," McPeak said. And last month McPeak had to retract his statement that as president, Obama would not be reduced to "crying fits" like Mrs. Clinton

Well, it is likely that Obama will soon be having to retract Merrill McPeak. McPeak, who was arrested last year for driving under the influence, apparently has a problem controlling more than his thirst for fermented beverages. He also has a penchant for bashing Israel or, more particularly, Jews who oppose negotiating with terrorists.

McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19760401faessay10180/colonel-merrill-a-mcpeak/israel-borders-and-security.html) for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.

In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html) that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview (http://www.oregonlive.com/special/iraq/index.ssf?/special/iraq/0327mcpeak.html) with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."

The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"

McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

Translation (as if it's needed): Jews -- who put Israel over every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle East. And McPeak has the audacity to accuse Bill Clinton of McCarthyism.

McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and Christian Zionists are manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous and radical ways: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...."

McPeak also noted: "The secret of the neoconservative movement is that it's not conservative, it's radical. Guys like me, who are conservatives, are upset about these neocons calling themselves conservative when they're so radical."

Guys like McPeak are upset because they think Jews have too much influence.

McPeak (in his Oregonian interview) also equated terrorist organizations with neoconservative supporters for Israel:

Interviewer: "Do you think...there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak: "Absolutely."

Interviewer: "So this is -- this is multilateral."

Instead of discussing Hamas and Hezbollah, McPeak returns to his primary target: Christian and Jews who support Israel:

McPeak: "There's an element in Oregon [sic], you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place. I think there is enough good will on the Israeli side -- I've spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli air force as a junior officer, and so -- but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population."

In other words, American policy is the product of "religious Jews and neocons" who in McPeak's mind are just as much to blame for a lack of peace in the Middle East as are Hamas and Hezbollah.

It will be interesting to see how the Obama campaign formulates what should be its latest disavowal and dismissal of yet another anti-Israel and anti-Jewish "adviser."

McPeak's comments are worse than McCarthyism. They reflect the views of Reverend Wright and other Obama advisers who believe that Israel is just a problem to be solved, not an ally to support.

McPeak is not the only member of the Obama campaign who holds such twisted views. Others such as Robert Malley or Zbigniew Brzezinski have found themselves downgraded to "informal" advisers as their anti-Israel views are made public. Samantha Powers was dismissed for calling Hillary a monster, not for sharing McPeak's belief in the malign omnipotence of the "Israel lobby."

Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions