Yes the Douglass argument would have been hard to hear, but transparent, and easily defensible. However the Wright arguments that the US Administration planted aids, and engineered 911 is not only not defensible with any semblance of fact, it is also fantastic, and fanatically looney. Sorry, your point is not made.

Posted by: E Howard Holmes | March 14, 2008 4:27 PM

Sound bite or not, it is unbelievable that you would defend a pastor of the Gospel who stands in his pulpit and tells his congregation instead of singing "God Bless America" they should be saying "God D*** America." Whatever your political leanings, that type of rhetoric is never helpful.

Are you as supportive of David Duke? I didn't think so.

Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of the skin color of the believer. Wright is one heck of a prejudiced man.

Posted by: chris | March 14, 2008 5:13 PM

E Howard, you're right about 9/11. After all, everything changed on 9/11. Everything! Why, structural steel that Underwriters Laboratory had certified to withstand several hours at 2000 degrees Fahrenheit melted instantaneously in the fireball of burning jet fuel at 1300 degrees!

Yes, indeed, everything! Even the physical properties of matter!

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 14, 2008 5:28 PM

Yes, me again! Seems to me a lot of folks have some rather sizable logs stuck in their eyes! After how many years of Right Religious preachers pushing their political parodies of angry, narrow, fear-mongering 'Christianity' down our throats, a preacher rises to preach God's concern for 'the weightier matters of the Law, as Justice and Mercy.'

And suddenly we remember the separation of Church and state! The LORD Jesus has a word for this: hypocrisy.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 14, 2008 5:43 PM

So you claim he's over the top like Phelps and Hagee; I agree. All three are wrong. All three are hatemongers. I seriously doubt sojo.com, Butler-Bass or Ted would come to their defense as simply misunderstood.

What's good for the goose and all...

Posted by: chris | March 14, 2008 6:54 PM

There are times to listen. There are times to speak.

The White church in America--to this day--has not stopped to listen. I sometimes wonder how so many Evangelicals could not hear the substance of Dr. MLK's message. I guess it is the same way we can't hear Rev. Wright.

It is impossible to defend or debate Rev. Wright's sermons (even if they had some bearing on Obama's candidacy which I completely fail to see) unless someone is willing to first listen. Which is what DBB is arguing.

I will tell you which presidential candidates are tested by Rev. Wright. It is Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If either of them could truly hear Dr. Wright they would tell Obama's critiques to be quiet.

If either did so, they would would open the ears of about 20% of the population that currently have their ears closed (especially to McCain).

I understand why folks think Wright's words sound like Fred Phelps. But the assesment is wrong. Why? Because you stand close enough to the shoes of Fred Phelps that you understand it is hate. If you stood close enough to the shoes of Wright you would understand it is not hate.

There are no better friends to the ideals of America than the prophetic voice of the Black church. I am not being over dramatic (in my mind) to state the failure of the white church to hear this voice has undermined God's purposes for the nation, for the American church, for the cause of global missions.

It is hard to hear the words, "God Damn America." And we will stand on our righteous, indignant, feet to condemn the words--while on the road to God's condemnation of America.

That is not a defense or rebuke. That is a call to submit and listen to our brothers and sisters. God is fully able to judge the heart and the words of Dr. Wright.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 14, 2008 7:22 PM

I find all of this twaddle over Dr. Wrights words to be laughable considering that most people are still enmeshed in the illusion that there is any such a thing as race. Humanity is ONE kind upon the face of the earth. When that fact is finally realized all arguements will cease.
Seamus MacNemi

Posted by: Seamus MacNemi | March 14, 2008 8:15 PM

I find all of the twaddle over Dr. Wrights words to be laughable considering that most people are still enmeshed in the illusion that there is any such a thing as race. Humanity is ONE kind upon the face of the earth. When this fact is finally realized than all arguements will cease.

Posted by: Seamus MacNemi | March 14, 2008 8:21 PM

None of this would be happening if Reverend Wright had limited himself to calling the Catholic church the "Great Whore" and a "cult", and accusing Catholics of conspiring with the Nazis to perpetrate the Holocaust, and blaming the Jews for anti-Semitism, and blaming Hurricane Katrina on gay people, and calling for the US and Israel to launch a military strike on Iran in order to precipitate Armageddon and the slaughter of all Jews and Muslims in the world.

No, if Reverend Wright had said only the things that Reverend John Hagee -- who has publicly endorsed John McCain -- has said, then Obama would not have to "reject and denounce" anything, as he has done, categorically and forthrightly.

No, like John McCain, Obama would only have to say that he is "proud" to have the support of such a great "spiritual leader" and vaguely mutter that he doesn't necessarily agree with "all" of that individual's hateful, repugnant bigotry and his calls for mass murder.

Like, I'm SO sure.

Face it, folks. The people who own and run the giant ultra-rich corporations who own the vast majority of America's mass media, from which the vast majority of Americans get the vast majority of their information, are dead set on preserving the Bush policies of massive, Treasury-looting tax cuts for the ultra-rich, the squandering America's wealth (and blood) on reckless wars of aggression to control the world's oil supplies, and of course further deregulation of their industry so they can own and control, not just most, but ALL of America's mass media.

That's why the corporate-owned mass media is going to deify John McCain, and crucify whichever Democrat gets the nomination. The corporate media's campaign of character assassination against Obama or Clinton will make the goring of Al Gore and the Swiftboating of John Kerry look mild in comparison.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 14, 2008 8:36 PM

Like, I'm SO sure.

So McCain has attended Hagee's church for oh a few decades and considers him his spiritual mentor, or you blowing smoke up my pant leg?

Posted by: aaron | March 14, 2008 8:47 PM

Those who oppose Obama's candidacy will strain at this gnat for all it's worth, while at the same time be more than willing to swallow the McCain-Hagee camel. Posted by: Don

Exactly.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 14, 2008 10:30 PM

"So, Obama saw fit to repudiate Wright's comments on 9/11 and just officially cut him off from his campaign, yet DBB and others here still seek to defend him. What do you guys get that Obama doesn't?" Jesse

Listen, Jesse. Maybe you will find the answer.

For starters, without agreeing with DBB--what do you understand her argument to be?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 14, 2008 11:11 PM

I'm glad the monologue of the Religious Right is over, but some of these postings seem to justify anything and everything that runs counter to anything that may appear "conservative".

Defending Rev. Wright's statements that we live in the USKKKA and that we deserved 9/11 is pretty outrageous.

Posted by: Josh | March 14, 2008 11:24 PM

"Hey! Who was it who said that this issue wasn't part of the Republican Party's talking points?"

That was last week. Short memories you know. The media megaphones kind of catapulted the propaganda.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 15, 2008 12:03 AM

Josh--What do you think Rev. Wright meant in referencing "the USKKKA?"

And what comment in defense of that reference are you criticizing?

"Earth to Kevin. Earth to Kevin." Who Mr. Obama asked to perform his marriage (I don't find asking one's pastor to be bizarrre behavior) is meaningless to his public campaign. Are you concerned with knowing who married McCain six weeks after his divorce? I do not find it bizarre he asked his pastor to perform his marriage.

Do you remember prior to either the '80 or '84 election, Reagan visited the Bronx. He got out of his limo and got in a heated exchange with a Black woman. I admired his willingness to make his case. But he was clueless in his capacity to hear her.

What persons like Hannity and Medved are doing ad nauseum with Jeremiah Wright is pounding home to most African Americans (and others) that conservatives have no capacity to hear.

Re-read DBB. It is an appeal to listen. To listen. To listen. To listen. To listen. To hear outside of one's framework for listening/hearing.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 12:36 AM

'tired of liberal double standards'--Obama repudiated the message which has been played over and over. So your questions about him are apparently answered. Yes????

Exactly what about Obama do you find bitter and hateful?????

Posted by: Letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 12:53 AM

Christopher--Dr Wright may be saying a whole lot of the church is covering their opinions under the umbrella of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a reason why Dr. Wright at times sounds more like Farrakhan than he sounds like Joel Olsteen. And I don't think it is because he doesn't like Jesus.

I haven't even heard most of these comments of Dr. Wright. Further, the last time I saw him on television I thought many of his comments were silly. But I also know his old church and the substance of his teachings. I know the white church is virtually 'tone deaf' in its hearing or understanding of the viewpoint.

And all the controversy about Dr Wright is about trying to throw dirt in Obama's face--regardless if Obama's actions/words have in one instance reflected any of the "hateful" views suggested.

I am more than willing to critically review Dr Wright if you are willing to do the work to listen to Dr Wright (e.g. as DBB did in her assignment).

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 1:09 AM

I'm a conservative white pastor in the conservative Assemblies Of God. I would like to make a few points:
1. I would never, ever be led by the Holy Spirit to say anything so hateful as what Rev. Wright has said from the pulpit, I don't care what the history of my people was. My impression of liberal Christians of all races is that they have no problem following Jesus command to love their enemies but more than a little problem following His command to show love one to another. This divisive rhetoric has no place in the body of Christ, and should rightly be condemned by all well-meaning saints. There are things about America I deplore, especially abortion on demand, but to call down God's damnation on this country rather than to intercede for it as Moses did the nation of Israel is not prophetic, rather it is in the spirit of antichrist. We will never get beyond the racial divide until the (truly) United Church Of Christ, leads the way. And BTW, I would say the same thing of John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, etc.
2. Either Barack Obama is not being entirely truthful in his statement that he did not know of the inflammatory preaching of Wright over a 20 year relationship or else he was incredibly naive to the point of being clueless. If my spiritual convictions allowed me to be a betting man (which they do not), I would bet that he DID know about it, which begs the question, why would he stay at a church for 20 years that espouses the hatemongering which he now detests, being married and having his children baptized by the head hatemongerer?

Posted by: Rev. Stan Zack | March 15, 2008 1:32 AM

“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, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“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. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

Posted by: Pastor Left | March 15, 2008 3:25 AM

Why would DBB and Sojo attempt to defend the indefensible? IMO, this crazy "preacher" and Obama's association with him for the past 17 years will eventually cost Obama the election and quite possibly, even the nomination. Obama's excuse that he never heard these types of hate words while attending this church is not close to being believable and he should be ashamed to have been associated with this man for so long. How can a preacher ever say GD from the pulpit?

I now wait for McCain to condemn Rod Parsley before that becomes the next major story. I'm beginning to think that becoming too close to supposed "men of the cloth" is much more dangerous than helpful. Maybe future political campaigns will finally recognize that it's best to keep religion and politics completely separate. Ooops, that would put an end to this blog then, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Cads | March 15, 2008 4:12 AM

Hi all,

Is it true that out of 100 Senators only one, Obama, is black?

Is there a racial problem in America?

Are most Americans eager to pretend that it does not, in fact, exist?

Is this something that permeates American politics and the public, including the church?

Are those who are impolitic enough to speak their 'hearts' out and force a confrontation of the issue possibly 'prophets'?

Might the comments here be more about race and the separate historical narratives than they are about right and wrong?

I'd like to hear your answers. I am in East Africa, you see, where Kenya, one of the countries here, erupted into ethnic violence following disputed election results. That proved that the 'peace' that country had hitherto seemed to 'enjoy' was a lie.

The truth has come out clearly that the church in Kenya, along with politics etc, was/is divided along 'tribal' lines.

Please forgive me for making a 'comparison'. Is this happening in America, oh, maybe in a little more sophisticated, subtle, 'polite' manner?

Alu

Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | March 15, 2008 5:01 AM

It's too bad Ms. Bass couldn't address the *content* of Wright's remarks, instead of issuing platitudes about learning to listen to black preaching.

I don't know anyone who's offended that there is powerful black preaching. I know quite a few people in disbelief that Wright preaches things like the US government invented AIDS to perpetrate genocide on people of color.

The fact that people have suffered is no excuse for rank nonsense.

Posted by: Chicagoan | March 15, 2008 8:12 AM

Black preachers would do best, by taking the immense log out of their community's eyes. Everywhere on earth where Blacks live, poverty, violence, mysogyny, fatherless children, filthy city conditions, barred windows and doors and corruption are standard conditions. The history of Africans, is black on black violence. It was Blacks that sold Black slaves to Muslims that sold them to white europeans. Even today IN African country after African country, violence, poverty and genocide BLACK ON BLACK is an every second occurrence. It is well past time for Black Christians to employ Black Liberation theology in reality. Time to start cleaning their own houses first. Wright lies effortlessly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just one example. How about the whole story when it comes to "preaching" the truth.

Posted by: Proper Perspective | March 15, 2008 8:31 AM

I do wonder how any of the Old Testament prophets (in particular, Jeremiah, the name sake of so much focus this week) would fare in this current political climate. As I recall, he was condemned, beaten, ridiculed and jailed for espousing his views as he heard them from the Lord and spoke those words, was regarded as "hateful" and "intolerant" and even "unpatriotic." If such ridicule is the price we must pay as preachers and prophets for being faithful to the gospel, I pray that most preachers would choose the ridicule, even if it earns us the scorn of the media and the culture.

Posted by: Kenneth James | March 15, 2008 9:04 AM

"Obama repudiated the message"

please - he has been his spiritual advisor for 20 years

Obama is lying - he knows full well of Wrights comments and has been called on them before

To say he never heard these things and is only just now denouncing them is a lie and he should be called on it.

The UCC is becoming a huge thorn in the side of the Obama campaign what with the IRS investigation and Rev Wright

In my opinion the National offices of the UCC are a PAC masquerading as a denomination.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 15, 2008 9:48 AM

In my opinion the National offices of the UCC are a PAC masquerading as a denomination.

Do you know any UCC members? If not, then don't speak out of ignorance.

Posted by: Don | March 15, 2008 9:52 AM

Hey Don - are you still ignoring me?

You don't have to go to the Synod with Barak to see hear the nauseating political tripe from the National UCC

You can go to any number of their churches any given Sunday and hear about, Global Warming, the hatred of President Bush, or a myriad of other liberal causes.

Its high time someone investigated this Political Action Committee masquerading as a denomination

I am Former member of Topsfield MA UCC, until I was excoriated for being a conservative. All I did was ask the Pastor to stop talking politics from the pulpit.

Like the Thanksgiving Day sermon in 2002 where my minister compared measle infected blankets given to the Indians by colonists as the "very first WMD's"

or the Homecoming sermon on September 22 when he compared 911 to the Great Flood - to punish the USA

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 15, 2008 10:08 AM

I understand what you're saying and believe your justification for it, but racism is still racism no matter how you slice it.

Posted by: GB | March 15, 2008 10:11 AM

Imagine if Obama were white, and his preacher was shouting like a Nazi or a KKK member.

Butler Bass would not be trying to spin that.

Shame on you, Diana Butler Bass!!!

Posted by: jazzact13 | March 15, 2008 11:11 AM

Hey Don - are you still ignoring me?

Not now that you've stopped shouting. Not that you've gotten any better at persuasive dialogue. You still seem to prefer attacking to reasoning.

You don't have to go to the Synod with Barak to see hear the nauseating political tripe from the National UCC

Just because you personally disagree with their positions, that doesn't justify your labeling them a PAC. I disagree with my denomination's "official" position on several things, but they aren't issuing their position statements to be political. They're trying to shed biblical light on current issues. I haven't seen that the UCC is any different.

Like the Thanksgiving Day sermon in 2002 where my minister compared measle infected blankets given to the Indians by colonists as the "very first WMD's"

If the blankets were given to the Native Americans for the purpose of infecting and killing them with disease, is the analogy really false?

or the Homecoming sermon on September 22 when he compared 911 to the Great Flood - to punish the USA

Maybe not to punish us, but it certainly was a divine wake-up call. A wake-up call that we have yet to heed. Read Habakkuk.

D

Posted by: Don | March 15, 2008 11:23 AM

As a young, white male I never knew the intensity of the civil rights movements. However, I was raised to always treat people of all different colors with respect and dignity, the way Christ would. It pains me to see that racial prejudice against minorities does still exist, even though I have done all I could to not fuel the fire of prejudice, but instead stand up for the oppressed.

However, despite my motives in trying to build a relationship with African-Americans, I have found it very hard to do so at times. Almost always, it is more difficult for me to achieve friendship with black Christians than blacks who are not Christians. Now, this is from my experience only and there is no scientific data to go along with this. But I wonder if comments from black preachers like Rev. Wright does not fuel the prejudice towards white people, especially white people my age who are doing all we can to stand up for them and distance ourselves from our previous generations' prejudices. The greatest black leaders and Christians of our time were not radical in the way Rev. Wright was radical, yet they have had more impact on our society (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr.).

Others on here have also elevated Rev. Wright to the controversial prophets of Israel. But Rev. Wright is different from the Israelite prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures in the fact that a lot of his comments are meant to divide, the prophets of old warned Israel of their destruction because of their division between themselves and God; there is a difference there.

I really, really do sympathize for the black community in our society and I can understand (will really I can't) where Rev. Wright is coming from, but I think there is always a better approach than a message that is filled with anger. White and black Christians all over America really need to begin learning how to truly love each other, not by just saying it, but actually showing that love to one another. We need to help our black brothers and sisters when they experience social injustice (and they still do), but I also believe that black Christians need to be more patience with our slower white brothers and sisters, because Lord knows it takes us awhile to get on board.

Posted by: Matt G. | March 15, 2008 11:55 AM

In my opinion the National offices of the UCC are a PAC masquerading as a denomination.Posted by: Paul Jamieson

Maybe you should read the blog rules about disparaging denominations here.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 15, 2008 10:10 AM

Jesus named names and went after individuals as well as corrupt societies and gropus. B-Net should not inflict Christian honesty in conversations with a humanist PC indoctriantion method. Naming names is honesty. Vague inuendos serves no purpose for getting to the truth. No Apostles was vague on right and wronf either.

Posted by: Rocks only hurt a little. I know. | March 15, 2008 12:31 PM

Reviewing the sad comments here, it's clear that what I've experienced in life is true - America's original sin, racism, has never been fully acknowledged or repented of.

Surely, there are many who have tried, and efforts at reconciliation have been made. Laws themselves have been reformed. That is good and useful.

But laws, any legalistic response to a problem, do not change hearts.

That this is true is evident from the fact that a cruel civil war and a constitutional amendment resulted in little change in many people's hearts - lived out in in their actions and little damning laws against racial minorities and for an unequal aprtheid for a century afterword.

The most popular speaker in America, well into the twentieth century, was minister, speaker and author Thomas W. Dixon. His views informed the popular majority culture. His enormously popular and well-written, even inspiring books informed the sensibilities of our nascent entertainment media from its very beginnings.

His best-selling "The Clansman" was the inspiration for one of the greatest American films ever made, "Birth of a Nation," adapted by Hollywood's greatest director, David W. Griffith.

Yet those intensely patriotic, self sacrificial and noble heroes of his religious and patriotic novels and Griffith's great films, are members of a secret revolutionary and proudly terrorist organization called the Klan, dedicated to reclaiming land and soil, according to blood, calling America back to her first principles of civilization and freedom.

America heeded that call. The era of Reconstruction, where the former slaves were given land and implements, served in legislatures, held positions of responsibility, were all cruelly withdrawn and recalled, through intimidation, violence and assassination.

The Klan - yes, that selfsame KKK glorified by America's seminal public entertainment and popular literature - was the expression of loyalty to the founding Sin, calling it Service to Mankind and through its exercise of the belief in redemptive violence returned the nation to that sin. Prophetically, we might say according to the insight of the wisest counselor, as found in the Book of Proverbs:

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

Very few now will dare openly disparage or criticise Dr. Martin Luther King. Yet those who are hardest-hearted and short of memory now have political ancestors who did, in the recent past.

Lies, innuendo, rumors, false witness, surveillance, threats, arrest, violence and eventually death confronted Dr. King, those he championed and his supporters - all from within the twisted regions of the communal soul that is white America. Pastors preached sermons against him.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists trumpeted segregation and Jim Crow as core spiritual Americana. The highest law enforcement agency in the land launched vile secret plots to get him to commit suicide, labelled and libelled him the worst hanging epithet of treason, a "Communist" in the employ of the Soviet Union.

Yet a white conservative pastor from the Assemblies of God says, callously, without insight or understanding,

"I don't care what my people did."

The twisted things that are still in the saddle of some of our souls, that ride our portion of mankind, still remain to be exorcised from white America.

For us to repent, we must listen to some undiplomatic and
iconoclastic prophetic language. We must hear the pain of the hate we conjured up in the terms we expressed and lived it against these peoples, both the African and the Amerindian, without stopping our ears and gnashing our teeth.

"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him.

"They cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears and rushed at him with one impulse.

"When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him."

Only when we truly realize and acknowledge the horrid depth of our national sin can we repent, recompense and reconcile with one another.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 15, 2008 12:50 PM

Cads
If you begin with the assumption that the white power mainstream has been responsible for US success and leave the statement there, you imply that what the mainstream did in order to make the US so successful was right and good.
The first assumption is overly simplistic. Slavery built much of the early wealth of this nation was a white mainstream choice that was obviously wrong.
The wealth this nation garnered from the genocide of our native peoples is another.
I am surprised that you approach this subject from this angle, but I think these two examples should answer your question.

If a native American gave the same sermon Mr Wright gave, I, as a white male might take offense but I doubt I would be justified in doing so.

You easily believe that "white fear might be justified in fearing a candidate who doesn't believe in the basic values system that they do."
Logic would say it is the peoples of color in this nation that have justified fear, and that any anger they might speak of should be heard in their context and not just reacted to. The fact that their anger may not be "Christian" does not change the fact that it is the only anger that has justifiable roots.

Posted by: wayne.danley | March 15, 2008 1:36 PM

I'm a white 54 year old male who happens to agree with much, but not all of Pastor Wrights statements and here's why. It's been almost 40 years since, then, president Nixon, declared a war against drugs. Yet, over the years, this government has wasted billions of dollars of our taxes ineptly and the illicit drugs keep coming. Where do most of these illegal drugs end up; well, I think we all now the answer to this question. Now, let's talk about the gang killings in the poor sections of LA: What if anything, is our government really doing to solve this, ever worsening problem. The simple answer is...not nearly enough, and ashamedly, that's always been the problem.

Posted by: Kevin Murray | March 15, 2008 1:56 PM

Like the Thanksgiving Day sermon in 2002 where my minister compared measle infected blankets given to the Indians by colonists as the "very first WMD's"

"If the blankets were given to the Native Americans for the purpose of infecting and killing them with disease, is the analogy really false"

If it was true I think it would make some sense .Actually there is a letter that many in the anti american crowd use to promote this rumor , butwas way after the long after America was founded . Its been proven false , never happened . Americans did partake in a Halocaust of sorts with the Native people here , but infected blankets was not part of the method.

I think that is why people are speaking about this Pastor and the anology of him spreading racial hatred like the KKK . If that was true , the anology is true also . The thing that politically will follow Obama is why did he not leave the church . And people speaking up defending Wright will make make many in the suburbs think what does this have to do with anything . Simple fact is most people identify being called American , hearing how hateful they are and the hate you can hear in the preaching , they will normally think he is a nut . They themelves are concerned with inflation , their job security , etc , they was a President they feel is on their side . Thats why King was so such a great leader , and thats why Obama is such a great leader.

By the way Don , what is this John Hague thing . I sometime listen to the Bible Answer man on the radio and he was speaking to his cultish beliefs . But he has a huge following ? And does he preach hatred ?

Sometimes deluded people may aggree with many of our views , but go off on tangents like Hague and WRIGHT .

THAT DOES NOT DISQUALIFY your other opinions . I never heard Obama preaching Wright's hatred , or heard some of the anti American rhetoric I heard here , Obama or many of us do not put the Flag above our Faith , but many of us believe in the American Dream and believe America is a good country and a good way of moving forward .

That is why people like Obama get into politics . To keep moving forward .

King pointed us towards our better Angels , why defend this loony tune ?

Posted by: Mick | March 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Kevin,

Given you do understand Dr. Wright--please just choose one of what you consider the most offensive comments and just summarize how it fits in his framework--and then critique. Please.

All you specifically raised here is, "If your theology brings you to the point of blaming American sin for terrorist attacks, then you are in Pat Robertson territory." I don't conclude "Pat Robertson territory" to be a critique.

I believe Dr. Wright's words were "chickens coming home to roost" which is a colloquialism for reaping what we sow (straight from the mouth of Jesus).

Kevin, I have zero interest in arguing about Dr. Wright's words except as a window to erase some of the misunderstanding that DBB targets her piece at. If you are interested, I am interested. Or do you see no misunderstanding?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 2:48 PM

Mae--are you interested in lessening the misunderstanding between white and black Christians? Or do you see no misunderstanding?

"why defend this loony tune ?" Mick

Mick--are you interested in lessening the misunderstanding...or do you see none?

Do you think those who are buy sifting through Dr. Wright's sermons/words looking for something for Hannity to replay are interested in building understanding?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 3:02 PM

With friends like Wright, who needs enemies. His church was even responsible for SELLING these tapes to news organizations - I mean, how stupid was that? Doesn't the hierarchy of his church want Obama to get elected? I'm glad to see Barack is now trying to distance himself from this kind of stupidity and trying hard to appeal to middle America. It's his only chance to get elected and I wish him well. He has a REAL chance to change race relations in this country forever if he sticks to a middle ground.

And Wayne, I can't help what happened over 140 years ago to Native Americans and slaves. Of course slavery and the way Natives were treated was wrong, but we've now risen above these atrocities and consider human rights all important. You can't change the past, so why keep bringing it up? Plus, historically, you're wrong. Slavery was responsible for the agricultural South's economy and the industrial North was what drove this country to its current prosperity. The South lost the war more because of its slave economy than any other reason.

All I can realistically address are the opportunities available to all races in today's America if education and hard work are emphasized over all else. As a white male, I'm embarrased by the increasing number of able-bodied white trash who think that it's fine to accept government handouts as their primary source of income.

Barack seems to have risen to his present position through stressing and living true American values, not by tearing down the country that has given him these opportunities. Good for him and shame on those people whose primary goal is to blame our country for all of the world's woes.

Posted by: Cads | March 15, 2008 3:35 PM

How can you defend this guy? This his pastor and he also called him a mentor. This is not just on occurence of flat out hatred against white people and the United States of America, this is this guy's life. This is stepping over the line in my opinion, you are defending this pastor just because you like Obama. If anyone else's 'mentor' repeatedly said GD and spat hatred from the pulpit then you would be all over him/her. Please try and be fair when you post on this blog.

Posted by: Russell | March 15, 2008 3:45 PM

"I can't help what happened over 140 years ago to Native Americans and slaves. Of course slavery and the way Natives were treated was wrong, but we've now risen above these atrocities and consider human rights all important. You can't change the past, so why keep bringing it up? Plus, historically, you're wrong."

You could help recompense by redressing what happened back then now. It's no good to sit atop a pile of wealth and privilege that was heaped up by your fathers through wrongdoing, and as the beneficiary of that in so many ways, defend the status quo of present inequality by proclaiming it the starting point for a self-serving future "equality."

The Trust Funds for Native American tribes, administered by the Interior Department, which amount in the trillions, can't be found. The government keeps being cited for contempt for its inability to provide any accounting whatsoever, yet never has its feet held truly to the fire. Treaty abrogations are still occurring and resolutions for past ones can literally drag on in white courts for a century. Tribes are still terminated and lose recognition.

No matter how many official documents have leaders of the past approving of smallpox as accomplishing genocidal aims, even counselling that it be done intentionally, the white person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still - he conveniently pretends atrocities never happened.

The number of Indians and African-Americans who are imprisoned or under court supervision is all out of proportion to their percentages of the population, even by our out of whack standards where America has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of its incarcerated population. There is systemic and structural injustice which serves the present economic and political interests of the descendants of the overt abusers of the past.

Convictions of minorities on such a massive scale serve to disenfranchise and discredit the political power of entire peoples who can never vote their own economic and political interests as white majorities carefully do.

Are human rights now paramount, or are they just "quaint artifacts" to be disposed of when any threat to white hegemony looms. internationally or domestically?

"Blind guides and hypocrites - so careful to polish the outside, while inside is foul with extortion and greed.
You pretend to be holy while evicting widows from their homes. You tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but you ignore justice, mercy and faith. You go to all lengths to make one convert, then turn him into twice the son of hell you are yourselves. You try to look like saintly men, but underneath are hearts besmirched with every sort of hypocrisy and sin.

"You build monuments to the prophets killed by your fathers and lay flowers on the graves of the godly men they destroyed, and say, 'We certainly would never have acted as our fathers did.'

"In saying that you are accusing yourselves of being the sons of wicked men. And you are following in their steps, filling up the full measure of their evil.

"Snakes! Sons of vipers! How shall you escape the judgment of hell?"

All that from Jesus' condemnations of the nationalistic religious leaders of his own time.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 15, 2008 4:25 PM

“Given you do understand Dr. Wright--please just choose one of what you consider the most offensive comments and just summarize how it fits in his framework--and then critique. Please.”

Sure thing. Wright says the we should sing “God Damn America” in lieu of “God bless America”. The latter asks God to bless America, to stand beside her and guide her. Wright’s comments introduce a couple of problems.

1) Given that he considers 9/11 to be an example of God’s wrath, he is asking his congregants to invoke similar wrath upon themselves.

2) He is, essentially, asking for America to perpetuate the sin that would bring about God’s damnation. The prophets warned of God’s wrath, whereas Wright is asking for it.

3) Unless Wright has been a perfect keeper of OT law, he has no business calling wrath upon anyone else.

Wright states that the chickens are coming home to roost, which is a Biblical reference of sorts. Okay, here is the problem:

1) Black people died in 9/11. Is God so careless as to bring judgment upon the victims of oppression? This is a valid criticism of Falwell’s statements as well.

2) The economic devastation, albeit tempered by economic growth, had a much more dramatic effect on the poor

3) NYC, and Manhattan in particular, are hardly a hotbed of KKK activity.

Wright states that “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

1) This is not appropriate rhetoric to come from a church leader.

2) Where the heck does this come from?
He says that people support Hillary because she appears, in essence, to be more Roman to them. In this narrative, Obama is a Christ-like figure, and support for Hillary represents hatred of Christ. There are some problems with this:

1) Obama, unlike Christ, is not without sin.

2) There is no reference, anywhere, to Christ being especially persecuted because of race. In fact, many of the Jewish leaders responsible for his death had strong ties to the Roman Empire.

3) The Bible teaches that we all (blacks included) are responsible for Christ’s murder. That’s the point.

4) Obama presently leads both Hillary and McCain in the polls, and has been very popular in the Midwest.

4) Being white does not make one part of the Roman Empire. The gospel was shared to gentiles.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 15, 2008 4:38 PM

Whatever one thinks of Dr. Jeremiah Wright's parody of the Irving Berlin song, "God Bless America" is not a Christian hymn. Rather, it's part of America's folk religion, a religion which is couched in Christian terminology laced with nationalism, but which has little to do with authentic Christianity.

Where in the Bible are Christians enjoined to pray a prayer that asks (or commands?) God to bless a nation-state? Nowhere.

To the extent that America's Christian churches have bought into this folk religion, to that extent they do not reflect the authentic faith described in the New Testament and witnessed by the apostles and the martyrs.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 15, 2008 4:56 PM

Some Frederick Douglass:

America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.

Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will. Show me the exact amount of wrong and injustices that are visited upon a person and I will show you the exact amount of words endured by these people.

The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose.

The soul that is within me no man can degrade.

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 5:18 PM

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.

Here is a speech he made during an independence day celebration. Read it. this is part 1

"Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens:

He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country school houses, avails me nothing on the present occasion.

The papers and placards say that I am to deliver a Fourth of July Oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for me. It is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall seems to free me from embarrassment.

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable-and the difficulties to he overcome in getting from the latter to the former are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the Fourth of July. It is the birth day of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, as what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. l am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot's heart might be sadder, and the reformer's brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young.-Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations."

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 5:24 PM

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.-The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fa thers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 5:29 PM

Read the rest of the speech here.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 5:38 PM

So, Sojo Truth, I assume continuing handouts to Native and African Americans is your idea of justice and right, representing an obligation of white Caucasions in America. Fine. Just realize that in doing so, you'll never let these groups of people rise to their full potential. Without blending in with successful Americans and by keeping them dependent on government handouts, we'll continue to perpetuate the "Massah" mentality forever and race will always matter. I want to end this. So many of the so-called "downtrodden" have escaped this mentality, which proves it doesn't always have to be like this. Just blend in and you just might be surprised at how successful and prosperous all people can be. Continue playing the victim and not many people are going to feel sorry for you.

While realizing the foolishness of American drug policies that have imprisoned so many of our minority youth, violence instigated by anyone against other persons deserves nothing but jail time. What else do you suggest we do with people who commit these acts?

What's the record number of responses to any one thread on Beliefnet? I do believe that we set a record with this one, and probably rightfully so. I'm done now, so go ahead and beat me up.

Posted by: Cads | March 15, 2008 6:44 PM

"Question: if in fact Rev. Wright is speaking prophetically as some on here are claiming, why is Obama denouncing the message? Shouldn't he be embracing it as God's judgement on 21st-century America? Why would he want to go against God?"

I would be interested to hear an answer for this. If Wright is a prophet, then Obama is on dangerous ground, here.

"Where in the Bible are Christians enjoined to pray a prayer that asks (or commands?) God to bless a nation-state? Nowhere."

Where in the Bible are Christians enjoined to pray a prayer that asks (or commands?) God to damn a nation-state? Nowhere.

I don't have a problem with a song that asks God to bless my country.

Posted by: kevin .s | March 15, 2008 8:12 PM

Paul--I agree there is a point to move on. African Americans should not have to spend 400 years demanding every inch of movement by white Christians. We can own up, stand up, and do our part. We can love. We can learn. We can make the hurts of another our own. We can say, "If no one else changes--I will change."

Cads--Do you think it is most just and wise for the United States federal government to fulfill it's treaty obligations or break them? Why? Do you have any disagreement with advocating for policies that reduce crime/violence, reduce incarceration rates, reduce wrongful convictions, increase convictions of serial violent offenders, and alter the nature of incarceration so as to better care for victims and the return of prisoners to communities where they do not revictimize? Are you really on a different page than ST?

Kevin--Thanks for post to my question. I will respond to your top "case" re: Dr Wrights "God damn America phrase." I don't believe his contention to be that his congregants ought seek God's judgement on themselves. Which raises question, what is substance of his argument. I do think the statement risks (or is in fact) using God's name vainly. Bottom line is I think it is intentionally done as such to illuminate the vanity of "God Bless America"--if while at the same time we tolerate a system of grave injustice. I would love to explore with you the depth of the betrayal, violation, and injustice and love, and contradiction and paradox that is present in such sentiments. My posts here tend to get way too long as it is.

I also realize, reading some of the posts here (not necessarily here) that some hear a level anger/hatred in his message that I don't hear. One of my first 'conversions' in learning to listen to African American voices was a book I read on linguistics. I began to realize how many negative judgements I had in all kinds of African American contexts that simply came down to stylistic issues.

A huge amount of church divisiveness (totally unrelated to race) arises out issues of style, form, language, and culture; often disguised as issues of theology, morality, and principle.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 15, 2008 8:26 PM

"I don't believe his contention to be that his congregants ought seek God's judgement on themselves."

Then he is seeking to damn others for their sin, which isn't called for, scripturally. The OT prophets kept the law, and called others to repentance. Wright, almost assuredly, does not.

"I do think the statement risks (or is in fact) using God's name vainly."

It does do that, and to what end?

"I also realize, reading some of the posts here (not necessarily here) that some hear a level anger/hatred in his message that I don't hear."

Have you seen footage of the statements? One can be forgiven for hearing a measure of anger and hatred.

One of my first 'conversions' in learning to listen to African American voices was a book I read on linguistics. I began to realize how many negative judgements I had in all kinds of African American contexts that simply came down to stylistic issues.

A huge amount of church divisiveness (totally unrelated to race) arises out issues of style, form, language, and culture; often disguised as issues of theology, morality, and principle.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 15, 2008 8:44 PM

Kevin you would be on good biblical ground to pray a blessing for our nation. Paul instructs Christians to pray for their nation and leaders. The history of the prophets is a lot more complex. Sometimes it was nationalistic and other times extremely condemning.

I think it is naive to think that our trade policies and other global actions have not earned us some ill will. I think that ill will has led to people wanting to kill us. They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because our companies and government can create chaos and destruction in their societies all the while ignoring the indigenous people. That's what Wright is getting at.

Does that mean that we deserved 9-11? No it doesn't now one deserves that. But does it make the causes of 9-11 clearer? I would argue yes. I don't see myself as a victim of racism. I see myself as a survivor of it. I think that's what our nation must do too. We should look at the policies our government and corporations institute and hold both to higher standards and when they break the law citizens should be able to dissolve their ability to cause harm.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 9:05 PM

I also want to challenge the whole idea that Wright and his church are nationalistic and divisive. In case no one has noticed the American church is already divided. It's f*cked. Sunday is the most segregated time in the country. It's because people don't like the stylistic differences that exist in church. That's the issue not the words of one pastor. We have divisions, and we refuse to do anything about them.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 15, 2008 9:29 PM

Regarding the allegation that the U.S. created and spread AIDS -- This is what the U.S. Army itself blunty teaches its soldiers during basic training!

Posted by: Lawrence C. | March 15, 2008 10:14 PM

"Regarding the allegation that the U.S. created and spread AIDS -- This is what the U.S. Army itself BLUNTY teaches its soldiers during basic training!"

What officers of the U.S. Army teach while high is of little import.

"Was it McCain's campaign that showed the videos?"

It was ABC news. If anyone's campaign is using them, its Hillary's.

"Was it really necessary?"

Why not?

"Does the nation really have to have this conversation right now?"

What is the conversation, and why shouldn't we have it?

"Shall we go through McCain's pastor's sermons with a fine-tooth comb, just to make sure there aren't any divisive comments against, say, Catholics or Jews, or pro-choice people?"

I assure you that Obama's people are doing precisely this, that McCain's have done the same., and that the attacks and counterattacks were drafted weeks ago.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 15, 2008 11:44 PM

Language is so powerful. We take words and wrap them around our experience and beliefs, then assume that everyone will interpret them the same way. Well, at least the people that are like us (right thinking Christians;right thinking Americans;right thinking white folks;right thinking black folks and the list goes on). I'd like to understand how a change candidate can afford to just walk away from any person, church, group, or language that makes him/her uncomfortable? How do Christians change hearts and minds and move people to a relationship with Christ if they are afraid of words? If they just walk away or avoid them? Diana Bass expressed an opinion that came from a place of love. I'm Black and don't necessarily agree with her but I could have a conversation with her, pray with her, and break bread with her and maybe even learn from her. Barack Obama is expected to transcend race and his response to that expectation is and has always been-- let's work together to get there. For some, it is unimaginable that a true {fill in the blank} could have a relationship with or love for someone they disagree with. I believe Barack Obama's goal is to work for solutions and his experience has taught him that the best way to get results is through negotiation with all parties and an acknowledgement of their equities. My Greatgrandfather was lynched and it was documented in celebration in the newspaper at the time. My Grandfather was about 9 when it happened and remembered the pain of it until the day he died at 97 a few years ago. My Grandfather worked hard, saved, sent his children to a segregated college {out of state because blacks weren't allowed to attend college in the state they were born and raised in} and he watched us, his Grandchildren go to college, gain a level of success, embrace his faith and values and he was proud. He understood that his sacrifice, struggle, and hardwork enabled us and we loved and respected him. He was a Christian man that loved God, his family, and his country. My Sister researched and found documentation of the lynching of his Father and shared it with him before he died and he felt affirmed. His Father's story is an uncomfortable one and was put in the the that-was-the-past category. He wanted us to listen and I can't say we did when we were younger. He didn't ask anyone to give him advantage and he didn't blame all white people for it but he did want it acknowledged. American history is my history. America is the only country I and generations before me have known. I work for this government and have the same level of love and commitment for this country. And I am not going to give up any freedoms that Americans fought for (like freedom of speech and religion) and I don't expect Barack Obama or Rev. Wright to either. I am not going to agree that the color of Barack Obama skin gives him advantage or that he should be held to any standard or religious litmus test that the other candidates are not assessed against. We can continue to go to our corners of right and left, black and white, rich and poor, new American and old American, and all those faith divisions. Or we can stand for what we believe with the understanding that we can not realize the American Idea if we can not find a neutral space to work it out in. No candidate can win without a diversity of support. The language of change and hope is the only language that can unite. Barack Obama walks with diversity, fueled by hope and possibility, with the goal of unity. And that's what separates him from most on this thread.

Posted by: Stephanie Berry | March 15, 2008 11:56 PM

"Remember Robertson's merciless attacks on President Bill Clinton's lapses of sexual morality with Monica Lewinsky? Or his comments about how the 9/11 attacks were the result of America's tolerance for homosexuals and abortion?'

These were Jim Wallis words speaking to Pat Roberston endorsing Rudy . Now we have a liberal Minister speaking about Bill Clinton RIDING Moncia like Bill Clinton rode Black America , Down and Dirty and saying 9/11 was deserved because of our racist nation .

I don't get too much of the difference except those who hate smaller government get upset over one , and the ones who want bigger government get really upset about the other.

But it looks like they were equally un Christ like .

Posted by: Mick | March 16, 2008 12:40 AM

To quote the Sidney Poitier character talking to his screen father in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and substituting Rev. Wright for the father and Barack Obama for Sidney Poitier (Barack speaking): "Reverand Wright, you think of yourself as a colored man; I think of myself as just a man." Times were changing even in 1967 when this movie was made. In today's world, respectful talk is usually met with respect by almost everyone. Mick hit the nail on the head when he talked about Obama running as a President for everyone; not as an African American man, but just as a man (or a woman in Hilary's case) - the only way anyone should be elected. That is, not based on race or gender, but on integrity and ideas.

Posted by: Cads | March 16, 2008 1:16 AM

I repeat: if in fact Rev. Wright is speaking prophetically as some on here are claiming, why is Obama denouncing the message? Shouldn't he be embracing it as God's judgement on 21st-century America? Why would he want to go against God?

Posted by: Rev. Stan Zack

The person you are speaking to has no concern with your view , your relationship with Christ , or an understanding of respectfull discourse or disagreement , I stopped reading him . Stick around my friend , you made sense .

"Or is your concern with lessening the misunderstanding between Black and White Christians which DBB wrote about?
'

Posted by: letjusticerolldown

You almost always make sense to me , even if I may lean to a different view I understand your thouths and ability to make them . I do not see your point . The lessening is being done here ON this blog by you my friend . There is no such thing as reverse discrimination , there is only discrimination .

I am from NJ , but sometimes I have a point

Posted by: Mick | March 16, 2008 2:12 AM

Mick--If you read Wayne again, you will see he allows for the "Two-way" you talk about. But there is an order to it.

I have always found it helpful to reject thinking of relationships as 50-50; but as 100-100. I obviously cannot control you in this communication; but that does not preclude me from taking a 100% responsibility in my attitude to make the communication work.

The reason that is so important in Black-White relations (and so many others) is that there is almost never a 50-50 split when there is a backdrop of an oppressor-oppressed cultures. That is not to say that Black persons cannot (or do not) assume responsibility for the relationship. It is a matter of expectation which I believe is what Wayne is addressing.

I fully hear your desire to be fair to Dr. Wright. But I think your attitude is that there is a mutuality of relationship.

Those of us who are part of a dominant culture are very "tone-deaf" to truly hearing a person from another culture. Persons from minority cultures are often far more skilled in cross-cultural functioning; because they have had to survive/thrive in multiple cultures.

In Black/White relations there is the combination of dominant/minority cultures as well as a historic oppressor/oppressed relationship. The only path to a true mutuality is through the dominant party submitting themselves.

That is why (in my opinion) DBB simply bypasses the specific words of Dr. Wright and goes to the misunderstanding of Blacks and Whites; appealing to Whites to go the distance in understanding.

This is what Wayne is asking for.......go the distance before expecting the mutuality.

Again--I hear your heart of mutuality and desire for simple fairness and I have no negative attitude towards that. But there is much more for us to do.

I married an African-American woman. We often joked that I knew alot more Black people than she did; and she knew alot more White folks. But our relationship depended alot on her capacity to function biculturally. She travelled the cultural distance to accomodate the 'cross-cultural' marriage. But I had, in a different way, crossed the divide and submitted myself to a "Black world". That created an environment of mutuality. But my point is just the natural state of affairs is that the person of minority status typically is the one adept at moving across cultures.

An African-American church I worked for typically did not allow reporters to video church services (particularly funerals); not because of thinking there might be inflammatory language; but because there was recognition the footage was typically used in a way that fed some kind of negative stereotype or increased misunderstanding. (This is one of the great failures to realize the positive impact media could have).

Pat Robertson has broadcast thousands of hours--talking about subjects far and wide. Things he understands and things he is clueless about. When he dies I can assure you the media reports will largely focus on a string of a dozen crazy comments. This is their storyline. This is their lens.

The media has a lens for the Black church. Our cultural framework is a powerful lens. A dominant cultural lens is very hard to see around. If the dominant person does not work at getting around that first--the minority person will quickly travel the distance to bridge the gap. But then the baggage from the oppressor/oppressed relationship never gets addressed; and there is not a mutuality.

One of the dynamics at work with these stories on Dr. Wright, is that white folks are listening in on a world via these recordings our ears are not trained to hear. And we misunderstand. And demand Barack listen through our grid and repudiate the words; so that the world conforms to our grid. We think "It's obvious. It's clear. The Holy Spirit is not in this." Just like it was clear MLK was a troublemaker and that Pat Robertson is crazy.

{Forgive me for taking so many words to make my point]

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 2:40 AM

Dear Ms. Stephanie Berry--

Thank you for your post. Very much. You honor those who have gone before you. Never lose hope nor doubt the value of a life given in love.

Blessings.

Let justice roll down like a river;
and righteousness like a quiet stream.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 3:03 AM

Dear Diana:

I could just hug you for sharing this piece. Finnally someone at Sojo gets it about being a UCCer.

Please keep these post comments up as long as possible. It is going to take me most of the week to find enough time to read and reflect on the comments.

I want to thank Rev. Jeremiah for providing Barack with such an instructional gift on matters of church and state. As a member of the UCC Barack demonstrated that he can disagree with his pastor and not be abandoned by his demonination or church community. You will discover many of them fall on both sides of this issue with out leaving their congregations.

It is a long held tradition in the UCC and many black churches that it is the responsibilty of pastors to provoke the members in their pews to dig deeply into their faith. If yours hasn't lately, you may be paying them too much. If you are offended by this please study more closely.

In the UCC matters of faith are very personal for each individual. It is each persons responsibility to find their own relationship with their Creator. IF the Spirit gives you all the answers right away how will He engage you in a meaningful way? So I entreat you to keep digging and asking questions. You never know where the journey will take you. There are bones to be found.

Mr. Obama has also demonstrated that he is relentlessly studious and does not make assumptions until they are tested. He is in good company with many UCC members who daily scrutinize matters of faith in persute of a closer relationship with their Heavenly Father.

There is no reason why Mr. Obama should be expected to take a test in matters of faith for a national office. A notion that offends many UCCers. But know this, ones faith in the UCC is a deeply personal experience that can not be tampered with by any one else. Not even their own pastors. Our ancestors have a long tradition of disagreeing with authority. How do you think we ended up in America?

So I challenge all of you to roll your eyes and be sceptical of the things you hear while sitting in the pew. And then go digging. There's a garden of Truth to be found.

Be curious. And get closer to your Maker.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 16, 2008 7:12 AM

I said I wouldn't have anything more to say, but another thought crossed my mind. When Americans sing "God Bless America," we frequently presume that God's blessing is our birthright--that we are somehow worthy of God's blessing just by being Americans. (And that means, of course, that we are in no need of repentance.) And it also presumes that other nations don't quite make the cut (e.g., Iran?).

That is also blasphemous. God loves all peoples and nations (ethnic groups, not nation-states) equally, and is ready to bless any of them. The sun shines and rain falls on all, not just Americans.

May God bless all his children.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 16, 2008 7:34 AM

["I would never, ever be led by the Holy Spirit to say anything so hateful as what Rev. Wright has said from the pulpit, I don't care what the history of my people was." - MEANING the Holy Spirit would never lead a pastor to spew hate
like that even if there were injustices done in the past to his people.]

Rev. Stan Zack, I would ask you to read Psalm 22, which Jesus, himself, quoted while on the cross. Also, Psalm 137, which is as scathing as anything which Rev. Wright said. The Psalmist honestly poured out his anguish to his God. Jesus honestly prayed in the garden seeking another way. Yet the cross was not the end, and Psalm 137 is not the last word. Rev Wright doesn't have the last word. We, though, are sinners as were our ancestors. (Matthew 23)
Igor

Posted by: Deryll | March 16, 2008 8:14 AM

Reverend Wright joins the list of preachers that have said bad things from the pulpit. Some of the substance has merit just like Pat Robertson's, and some crossed a line from zealous preaching to historical misrepresentation. Wright is just a man. Nothing more and nothing less. Wright obviously wasn't being led by anything supernatural to say the absurdity and racism that he did. I was never going to vote for Obama precisely because I knew his congregagtion and his beliefs were in line with this kind of reasoning. McCain is showing to be the most wise candidate of all.

Posted by: Purple rain | March 16, 2008 9:18 AM

Many of you have referenced to the fact that other politicians receive questionable endorsements, such as John McCain and his relationship to John Hagee, somehow as a means to justify the expressions of Jeremiah Wright. Let us not justify the hatefulness of Jeremiah Wright simply because white preachers can be just as hateful. I don't think Jesus wants us to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather, no evil at all.

Posted by: Charles Chear | March 16, 2008 11:10 AM

"Wait, did I read correctly that Wright was a part of Obama's campaign until TODAY? I thought that had happened months ago." Posted by: kevin s.

Itis scandalous, utterly scandalous that Obama didn't act quickly enough to satisfy Kevin S. How terrible.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 16, 2008 11:20 AM

It is a simple matter of historical fact that the United States of America is a nation built on genocide and slavery. Tens of millions of the aboriginal inhabitants of this continent were exterminated by European invaders. Many millions of Africans were enslaved as cheap labor over several centuries.

You may think about that whatever you wish, but to deny it is to deny reality.

It is also a simple matter of historical fact that various governments of the United States of America over the years have embraced a militaristic and imperialistic foreign policies under which they have unjustly invaded and waged war upon other countries, thereby killing millions of innocent people, and maiming, impoverishing and displacing millions more; and have also installed and supported some of the world's most brutal dictatorships, and have supported terrorist wars against popular elected governments, with similarly bad consequences for the lives and well-being of the people in the affected countries.

Likewise, you may hold whatever opinions about these facts you wish, but they are facts.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 16, 2008 12:23 PM

It is insane that anyone, anywhere would try to defend Rev. Wright's comments. They are filled with hate and slander and bearing false witness. I realized I wasn't a liberal when I discovered how much I dislike Obama and couldn't vote for him. I don't like what his wife says about America, either. I don't like his ties with Farrakhan and the Weather Underground or Rezko.

I support Hillary. Her Methodist church has a long history of compassion on social issues. I don't believe those who bear false witness against her or who slander her and commit a sin which Paul in Romans says is worthy of death. I believe that an honest, discerning appraisal of Hillary based on evidence and truth will show her to be the most Christian candidate.

Don't break the 10 commandments, and don't do what Paul considers a deadly sin--look at Hillary fairly and based on truth.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 16, 2008 12:59 PM

Remember - the UCC is the denomination that has continuously disparaged other religions.

They have gone so far as to create advertisements that equate the Catholic Church and other denominations with racism.

These "Still Speaking" ads were rejected by the major network and a lot of Congregationalists who wanted nothing to do with the campaign.

They literally showed bouncers outside of a Catholic church not allowing a young black girl or a gay couple inside.

I mean - cmon people.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 16, 2008 2:47 PM

Below are the basic responses of 28 commenters to DBB:

1. The Wright arguments (are) …fanatically loony.
E Howard

2. Wright is one heck of a prejudiced man.
Chris

3. It is noteworthy that in DBB's defense of Wright…
Jesse

4. Wright is over the top
Bob

5. DBB and others here still seek to defend (Wright).
Jesse

6. I find DBBs defense on the basis of race to be bizarre. Kevin

7. Defending Rev. Wright's statements … is pretty outrageous.
Josh

8. I am disappointed that the prophetic, red-letter Sojourners … has chosen to publish an evasive rationalization of teachings that are obviously hate-filled.
Tired of liberal double standards

9. To defend his statements by comparing his style to that of Douglas is reprehensible.
Christopher

10. I am glad Obama came out the way he did , he has more class and integrity then Dianna Bass
Mick

11. This divisive rhetoric has no place in the body of Christ, and should rightly be condemned by all well-meaning saints.
Stan Zack

12. Why would DBB and Sojo attempt to defend the indefensible?
Cads

13. It's too bad Ms. Bass couldn't address the *content* of Wright's remarks, instead of issuing platitudes….
Chicagoan

14. Everywhere on earth where Blacks live, poverty, violence, mysogyny, fatherless children, filthy city conditions, barred windows and doors and corruption are standard conditions.
Proper Perspective

15. What a crock.
Ja

16. …racism is still racism no matter how you slice it.
GB

17. Shame on you, Diana Butler Bass!!!
Jazzact13

18. I also believe that black Christians need to be more patience with our slower white brothers and sisters,
Matt G

19. Stop apologizing for hate speech. You are not making any sense. Disgusting!
Ray

20. I bristle at the notion that we cannot expect black people, even spiritual leaders, to exhibit any measure of control of their tongue (as the Bible commands of leaders).
Kevin

21. King pointed us towards our better Angels , why defend this loony tune ?
Mick

22. To support hate speech and those who entertain those who speak it is to beas culpable,to support it ,this article is no differentthan th eignorance that begat it.
Mae

23. Pastor Wright, should stick to the logs in his own community's eyes and remove them one by one. It will take hundreds of years to overcome the nature of Black culture, and of it being so OK with the conditions of Black immorality.
Rocks only hurt a little

24. This is not just on occurence of flat out hatred against white people and the United States of America, this is this guy's life.
Russell

25. You are an idiot. "The current media flap..."???
Jaw 787

26. As far as you yourself are concerned - well, I cannot imagine these men would have much use for you at all. It is unfortunate that your doctorate from Duke never taught you the distinction between ministering to a congregation and condescending to a captive audience.
Mister Snitch

27. I was never going to vote for Obama precisely because I knew his congregagtion and his beliefs were in line with this kind of reasoning.
Purple Rain

28. It is insane that anyone, anywhere would try to defend Rev. Wright's comments.”
Ashpenaz

The DBB piece is about the reaction to Dr. Wright—and the division between Black and White Christians represented by the reaction. She seeks to bridge understanding. These commenters essentially take the line that no bridging is necessary. Why? Because it is self-evident that their perception of Dr. Wright’s words are correct. No more evaluation is needed.

I will follow with the questions I asked seven of these posters so I could be clear on their positions and dialogue—and then their responses:

1. Josh--What do you think Rev. Wright meant in referencing "the USKKKA?"

Response: None.

2. ‘tired of liberal double standards’—Exactly what about Obama do you find bitter and hateful?
Response: None.

3. Christopher--I am more than willing to critically review Dr Wright if you are willing to do the work to listen to Dr Wright
Response: None

4. Ja-“Would you briefly describe what you understand him to be saying in his critique and specify your disagreement?”
Response: None

5. Mae--are you interested in lessening the misunderstanding between white and black Christians? Or do you see no misunderstanding?
Response: None

6. Jesse—what do you understand her argument to be?
Response: None

Kevin and Mick, in their characteristic grace, both took time to answer questions; the first step to bridging understanding. Do you guys feel your faith, views, or personhood were compromised by dialogue? I think we can learn from each other--don't you?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 3:14 PM

"These commenters essentially take the line that no bridging is necessary. Why? "

No, I take the line that such bridging is necessary, but Wrights polemic is no way to build a bridge.

LJRD, perhaps you would like to tackle the question of whether Obama was right to reject Wright's comments. Was he rejecting prophecy?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 16, 2008 3:35 PM

I think Obama is rejecting incendiary, unhelpful language. Many testimonies about Trinity say that the sort of language heard in the presumably cherry-picked videos do not represent the typical message of Wright or Trinity. Language is obviously important to Obama. He is making it clear that whatever Wright may or may not have said when Obama was or was not present is Wright's responsibility, not his, and that they are things he would neither say nor agree with himself. Simple enough, really. It would be good for supporters of Trinity to post some less incendiary messages from Wright.

Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2008 3:56 PM

Kevin--I attempted to exclude Mick and you from my generalization. Sorry if that did not come through.

I'm not really biting on your was Obama rejecting prophecy question because to fairly address, I have to review the specifics of Wright's comments and the specifics of questions posed to Obama and the specifics of Obama's responses. But I will make a general response.

I have attempted to be clear that my comments/questions are geared at the reactions to Wright and the "Black-White" divide. It just doesn't work to tackle Wright's specific words without getting into his framework.

My general attitude towards Wright is that it is far more important for white evangelicals to hear him than to critique him. From his standpoint there should be merit in listening to criticism. But I feel more responsible to accomplish the listening piece. Hence my comments on this matter.

I view where Trinity UCC is at to be very important in an ongoing evolution of racial relations within the American church. I would not create a church with the theological/social constructs he has--but I cannot overstate the importance of what he has done. The Afrocentrism of the church is a counterbalance to the ethnocentrism of the theology/religion in the white church.

Personally, I believe what is needed is for radical peacemakers given to the heart of Jesus who can embrace the broad divisions and hurts and brokenness that are woven throughout our individual, family and corporate lives--who can take our eyes off of each other and focus on the Savior--with a confidence of the power of the Gospel. I think Dr. Wright's "Unapologetically Christian. Unapologeticlly Black" theme is closer to a Jesus focus than the culturally captivated white church. Wright is everybit as able to become culturally captivated as any of us. The Afrocentrism is an attempt at walking out of the racism that has defined the church in America. I do not think it is an end product. But if we can't build bridges and walk in unity we will all continue in cultural captivity.

White Christians have a long history of taking the line, "Yes, we want to change. Just give us more reasonable leaders that we can deal with."

You have Obama in a "Have you stopped beating your wife" position. If he doesn't condemn Wright he is full of hatred. If he does condemn Wright he rejects prophecy.

Obama is functioning in two worlds. He has to respond to the words as Wright spoke them and as his congregation understands them. And he must respond to them as you hear them.

My interpretation is that he rejects Wrights words as you hear them (which is not prophetic)and likely affirms them as his congregation hears them (which is likely a mix of "there he goes again...and speaking truth").

I am not trying to be either funny or cute. Obama literally is forced to interpret and respond to the messages that are being heard by multiple parties; and not just to a set of words being said by one party. But he doesn't have the luxury of breaking that down. You see the difficulty on this line of comments getting any commonality of recognition that we have different interpretive frameworks going on.

Remember the stark contrasted images on TV at the OJ Simpson verdict. Black students jumped and cheered. White students were dumbfounded and silent. And both sides saw the other as having lost it.

Your line is "Dr Wright needs to change. Then I'll listen." What I am saying, Kevin, is that what we have the greatest capacity and power to do in moving together towards Jesus is to do the listening part. From that--God can work.

And I do greatly appreciate your willingness to give and take.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 4:35 PM

"The only perspective that matters in this is that there are 9 white voters for every 1 black voter and Obama's pastor has probably eliminated Obama's chance of being elected President."

If that is your only concern, than that may be all that matters. I didn't know Dr. Wright had 100 million votes and was opposing Obama. It could be there are many people who desire God's desires to be more fully present in our world. I would hope we can create a better understanding where there has been great division. Is there any reason you would not want that?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 4:45 PM

Kevin and Mick, in their characteristic grace, both took time to answer questions; the first step to bridging understanding. Do you guys feel your faith, views, or personhood were compromised by dialogue? I think we can learn from each other--don't you?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown

Not at all , I believed you and Wayne profoudly had an impact in how I viewed this , But still for me to accept your point my friend , I needed commonality , your descrition of the dominant culture which I can identify as being white , and also understand because of my Faith being in the sub culture helped understand quite some more in some of my assumptions. . But commonality does take exchange .

And I am not exagerating with the word profound. Thank you for taking the time .

Posted by: Mick | March 16, 2008 5:07 PM

speech from Frederick Douglass, and ask that everyone go back and reread it.
Douglass was a gift from God to this country at a time when it could be argued we did not deserve one

Posted by Wayne

Perhaps the Holy Spirit was working overime today , but I did go back and read most of that speech . You changed a mind Wayne , with the help of Fred and Lettuce . " I will call him that for short so he will get puffed up on us "

But mind you , God does bless America , and as you say we sure don't deserve it, but may we continue to try by His Grace he has shed on us to follow Him . I read Douglass actually beat up his slave owner , what a character he was .

An American hero .

Posted by: Mick | March 16, 2008 5:29 PM

I guess electing Obama to head up white majority America is seen by a lot of his critics as a bit like the incongruity of hiring Ralph Nader to become CEO of General Motors.

Except that dates me back to the heyday of what became the American industrial rustbelt - today, it's more like getting elected to head "General Mortars"

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 16, 2008 5:36 PM

"Even if I were inclined to want to praise Iran over and above America "

That's not what I said. I just don't see you having a problem with Iranian (or French, or whatever) people asking God to bless their country.

"I'll continue to refuse believing that God owes America his blessings."

Asking God to bless something is not that same as expecting God to bless anything. You ignored my question about whether singing a song asking God's blessings on ones wife would also constitute idolatry. Are the Psalms idolatrous as well?

And nothing in your argument gets you to a proper defense of Wright's remarks.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 16, 2008 5:41 PM

"Asking God to bless something is not that same as expecting God to bless anything."

That's a reasonable statement. But "America," as someone observed - the ideas, the people, the places, the policies - is so diverse you could describe whatever is said about it as true, whether for good or bad.

So a generic prayer of blessing for America, depending on what one meant, might indeed be expecting a blessing of or for anything America might do.

On the other hand if you meant to ask that America do what is worthy of God's blessings by that prayer, that's fine.

No doubt there are those who pray in just those two ways.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 16, 2008 5:54 PM

From Trinity's Palm Sunday bulletin;

In this school year, 17 children have gone to school and not returned home. In this school year,
17 children have left their parents, not knowing that they would never return again. This year
alone, 17 children have been killed by gun fire. These are 17 people who could have shaped the
future of our city, community, nation and world. These are 17 lives senselessly taken.
As part of an effort to cease the killing and value the lives of the children, Father Michael Pfleger has instituted two initiatives which prayerfully will slow down access to guns, and force the state legislature to pass common sense gun laws.

1. Within 24 – 72 hours after a child is murdered, a response team will rally from 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon at the Thompson State of Illinois Building, demanding that state legislators pass gun legislation.

2. Every time a child is murdered, if there is no known suspect, a $5000 reward will be put up
for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the shooter.

If you are interested in participating in either of these initiatives, please call the Faith Community of St. Sabina Church at 773-483-4300.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Boycott Wal-Mart & Sam’s Club

Those damn guns keep killing children!

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 16, 2008 6:05 PM

Comparing the comments of Frederick Douglas and Jeremiah Wright, Douglas' sermon reads like a call for the larger society to repent, while Wright's reads like a call for wrath.

Douglas speaks to "fellow citizens", making it clear that he is addressing whites as well as blacks. Wright's speech is directed only as "us", and in a frankly pro-black church it's hard to say what, if anything Wright would have to say to the larger society aside from, well, "God d**n you too".

Douglas is issuing a warning. It is his intention to persuade the larger society to repent and take action to avoid God's judgment.

Wright comes across to me as someone who is looking forward to seeing God's wrath dispensed.

I could be mistaken, and even if I'm correct I won't say I've never been in that frame of mind myself. But it sure isn't the sort of thing that draws people to Christ.

Whether it's fair to hold Obama accountable to Wright's comments or not, Jeremiah Wright strikes me as a mediocre teacher and a hothead.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 16, 2008 6:21 PM

More on the larger context here:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/barack-obama-condemns-reverend-jeremiah.html

Posted by: TC | March 16, 2008 6:50 PM

I am glad Frederick Douglass beat up his rapist father. he deserved it. I am sorry but cmon... We are talking about an institution that saw my people as nothing more than property. Any form of resistance (minus child killing) was totally acceptable in my view. I know, I know, not full of non-violence but that's how I feel. Frederick Douglass was the first black candidate in our nations' history to run for president. He was amazing and a class act. Read his story, his speeches and learn more about his life.

In the face of evil like slavery it can be necessary to vent some stuff. His dad was a rapist. Think about that for a minute and still think about his father keeping him in chains for a long time until he ran away. The man went thru hell.

As for Wright he is not a nationalist. You all would hate real black nationalist. He is about empowerment from a black perspective. Is anyone here aware of black liberation theology. Maybe folks should read that before they sit back and think about how loony Wright is. He is a lot smarter than one might suspect.

Again our policies and decisions led to 9/11. We need to be aware of that if we have any hope of overcoming the sins our policies create in the world. How hard is that to understand?

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 16, 2008 9:04 PM

As Obama's left leaning have been revealed, he is losing ground to McCain, who has crept ahead of Obama in the polls. His appeal was that he was, allegedly, post-partisan, and above the tricks of hucksters like Al Sharpton.

In your dreams. Obama has never hidden his agenda.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 16, 2008 9:56 PM

If George Bush and Osama Bin Laden both use cell phones--it is not proof this conflict is all about cell phones. On the other hand, modern terrorism would be structured a bit different if there were no cell phones.

The challenge in these 9/11 equations is to neither overstate nor understate the systemic nature of the issues. I do think there is a problem when there is hesitation to name, identify and characterize those who directly carried the attacks in New York and Washingon and the nature of their war against the US.

To clearly identify "The Enemy" however does not release us from the critical task of analyzing our connections in the larger system; and own our part of the trajedy.

Systemic evil is when everyone does the right thing; but the net outcome is evil.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 10:13 PM

Hey Mick,

Most foreign policy experts openly recognize we do things to anger the Muslim world. Those resentments grow and foster, creating people that are willing to fly into buildings. I included a paragraph and a footnote at the bottom of this post. Read Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. I got that quote from this journal.

mq.[space]dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/1/52.pdf
just google the link.
"Instead, the commission acknowledged that there is a great deal of anger in the Muslim world at US policies: “America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.”17

17. 9/11 Commission Report, 376. This is a point also emphasized by a senior CIA offi cial. See
Anonymous, Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror (Washington, DC: Brassey’s,
2004).

Be blessed,
p

Posted by: Payshun | March 16, 2008 10:17 PM

You all can read about Frederick Douglass here.
history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part1.html

Frederick Baily was born a slave in February 1818 on Holmes Hill Farm, near the town of Easton on Maryland's Eastern Shore. The farm was part of an estate owned by Aaron Anthony, who also managed the plantations of Edward Lloyd V, one of the wealthiest men in Maryland. The main Lloyd Plantation was near the eastern side of Chesapeake Bay, 12 miles from Holmes Hill Farm, in a home Anthony had built near the Lloyd mansion, was where Frederick's first master lived.

Frederick's mother, Harriet Baily, worked the cornfields surrounding Holmes Hill. He knew little of his father except that the man was white. As a child, he had heard rumors that the master, Aaron Anthony, had sired him. Because Harriet Baily was required to work long hours in the fields, Frederick had been sent to live with his grandmother, Betsey Baily. Betsy Baily lived in a cabin a short distance from Holmes Hill Farm. Her job was to look after Harriet's children until they were old enough to work. Frederick's mother visited him when she could, but he had only a hazy memory of her. He spent his childhood playing in the woods near his grandmother's cabin. He did not think of himself as a slave during these years. Only gradually did Frederick learn about a person his grandmother would refer to as Old Master and when she spoke of Old Master it was with certain fear.

At age 6, Frederick's grandmother had told him that they were taking a long journey. They set out westward, with Frederick clinging to his grandmother's skirt with fear and uncertainty They had approached a large elegant home, the Lloyd Plantation, where several children were playing on the grounds. Betsy Baily had pointed out 3 children which were his brother Perry, and his sisters Sara and Eliza. His grandmother had told him to join his siblings and he did so reluctantly. After a while one of the children yelled out to Frederick that his grandmother was gone. Frederick fell to the ground and wept, he was about to learn the harsh realities of the slave system.

The slave children of Aaron Anthony's were fed cornmeal mush that was placed in a trough, to which they were called. Frederick later wrote "like so many pigs." The children made homemade spoons from oyster shells to eat with and competed with each other for every last bite of food. The only clothing that they were provided with was one linen shirt which hung to their knees. The children were provided no beds or warm blankets. On cold winter nights they would huddle together in the kitchen of the Anthony house to keep each other warm.

One night Frederick was awakened by a woman's screams. He peered through a crack in the wall of the kitchen only to see Aaron Anthony lashing the bare back of a woman, who was his aunt, Hester Baily. Frederick was terrified, but forced himself to watch the entire ordeal. This would not be the first whipping he would see, occasionally he himself would be the victim. He would learn that Aaron Anthony would brutally beat his slaves if they did not obey orders quickly enough.

Frederick's mother was rarely able to visit her children due to the distance between Holmes Hill Farm and the Lloyd plantation. Frederick last saw his mother when he was seven years old. He remembered his mother giving a severe scolding to the household cook who disliked Frederick and gave him very little food. A few months after this visit, Harriet Baily died, but Frederick did not learn of this until much later.

Because Frederick had a natural charm that many people found engaging, he was chosen to be the companion of Daniel Lloyd, the youngest son of the plantation's owner. Frederick's chief friend and protector was Lucretia Auld, Aaron Anthony's daughter, who was recently married to a ship's captain named Thomas Auld. One day in 1826 Lucretia told Frederick that he was being sent to live with her brother-in-law, Hugh Auld, who managed a ship building firm in Baltimore, Maryland. She told him that if he scrubbed himself clean, she would give him a pair of pants to wear to Baltimore. Frederick was elated at this chance to escape the life of a field hand. He cleaned himself up and received his first pair of pants. Within three days he was on his way to Baltimore.

Upon Frederick's arrival at the Auld Home, his only duties were to run errands and care for the Auld's infant son, Tommy. Frederick enjoyed the work and grew to love the child. Sophia Auld was a religious woman and frequently read aloud from the Bible. Frederick asked his mistress to teach him to read and she readily consented. He soon learned the alphabet and a few simple words. Sophia Auld was very excited about Fredericks progress and told her husband what she had done. Hugh Auld became furious at this because it was unlawful to teach a slave to read. Hugh Auld believed that if a slave knew how to read and write that it would make him unfit for a slave. A slave that could read and write would no longer obey his master without question or thought, or even worse could forge papers that said he was free and thus escape to a northern state where slavery was outlawed. Hugh Auld then instructed Sophia to stop the lessons at once!

Frederick learned from Hugh Auld's outburst that if learning how to read and write was his pathway to freedom, then gaining this knowledge was to become his goal. Frederick gained command of the alphabet on his own and made friends with poor white children he met on errands and used them as teachers. He paid for his reading lessons with pieces of bread. At home Frederick read parts of books and newspapers when he could, but he had to constantly be on guard against his mistress. Sophia Auld screamed whenever she caught Frederick reading. Sophia Auld's attitude toward Frederick had changed, she no longer regarded him as any other child, but as a piece of property. However, Frederick gradually learned to read and write. With a little money he had earned doing errands, he bought a copy of The Columbian Orator, a collection of speeches and essays dealing with liberty, democracy, and courage.

Frederick was greatly affected by the speeches on freedom in The Columbian Orator, and so began reading local newspapers and began to learn about abolitionists. Not quite 13 years old but enlightened with new ideas that both tormented and inspired him. Frederick began to detest slavery. His dreams of emancipation were encouraged by the example of other blacks in Baltimore, most of whom were free. But new laws passed by southern state legislators made it increasingly difficult for owners to free their slaves.

During this time, Aaron Anthony died, and his property went to his two sons and his daughter, Lucretia Auld. Frederick remained a part of the Anthony estate and was sent back to the Lloyd plantation to be a part of the division of property. Frederick was chosen by Thomas and Lucretia Auld and was sent back to Hugh and Sophia Auld in Baltimore. Seeing his family being devided up increased his hatred of slavery, however, he was hurt the most that his grandmother, considered too old for any work, was evicted from her cabin and sent into the woods to die. Within a year of Frederick's return to Baltimore, Lucretia Auld died. The two Auld brothers then got into a dispute, and Thomas wrote to Hugh and demanded the return of his late wife's property, which included Frederick.

Frederick was sorry to leave Baltimore because he had recently become a teacher to a group of other young blacks. In addition, a black preacher named Charles Lawson had taken Frederick under his wing and adopted him as his spiritual son. In March of 1833, the 15 year old Frederick was sent to live at Thomas Auld's new farm near the town of Saint Michaels, a few miles from the Lloyd plantation.

Frederick was again put to work as a field hand and was extremely unhappy about his situation. Thomas Auld starved his slaves, and they had to steal food from neighboring farms to survive. Frederick received many beatings and saw worse ones given to others. He then organized a Sunday religious service for the slaves which met in near by Saint Michaels. The services were soon stopped by a mob led by Thomas Auld. Thomas Auld had found Frederick especially difficult to control so he decided to have someone tame his unruly slave.

In January 1834, Frederick was sent to work for Edward Covey, a poor farmer who had gained a reputation around Saint Michaels for being and expert "slave breaker". Frederick was not too displeased with this arrangement because Covey fed his slaves better than Auld did. The slaves on Covey's farm worked from dawn until after nightfall, plowing, hoeing, and picking corn. Although the men were given plenty of food, they had very little time allotted to eat before they were sent back to work. Covey hid in bushes and spied on the slaves as they worked, if he caught one of them resting he would beat him with thick branches.

After being on the farm for one week, Frederick was given a serious beating for letting an oxen team run wild. During the months to follow, he was continually whipped until he began to feel that he was "broken". On one hot August afternoon his strength failed him and he collapsed in the field. Covey kicked and beat Frederick to no avail and finally walked away in disgust. Frederick mustered the strength to get up and walk to the Auld farm, where he pleaded with his master to let him stay. Auld had little sympathy for him and sent him back to Covey. Beaten down as Frederick was, he found the strength to rebel when Covey began tying him to a post in preparation for a whipping. "At that moment - from whence came the spirit I don't know - I resolved to fight," Frederick wrote. "I seized Covey hard by the throat, and as I did so, I rose." Covey and Frederick fought for almost two hours until Covey finally gave up telling Frederick that his beating would have been less severe had he not resisted. "The truth was," said Frederick, "that he had not whipped me at all." Frederick had discovered an important truth: "Men are whipped oftenist who are whipped easiest." He was lucky, legally, a slave could be killed for resisting his master. But Covey had a reputation to protect and did not want it known that he could not control a 16 year old boy.

After working for Covey for a year, Frederick was sent to work for a farmer named William Freeland, who was a relatively kind master. But by now, Frederick did not care about having a kind master. All Frederick wanted was his freedom. He started an illegal school for blacks in the area that secretly met at night and on Sundays, and with five other slaves he began to plan his escape to the North. A year had passed since Frederick began working for William Freeland and his plan of escape had been completed. His group planned to steal a boat, row to the northern tip of Chesapeake Bay, and then flee on foot to the free state of Pennsylvania. The escape was supposed to take place just before the Easter holiday in 1836, but one of Frederick's associates had exposed the plot and a group of armed white men captured the slaves and put them in jail.

Frederick was in jail for about a week. While imprisoned, he was inspected by slave traders, and he fully expected that he would be sold to "a life of living death" in the Deep South. To his surprise, Thomas Auld came and released him. Then Frederick's master sent him back to Hugh Auld in Baltimore. The two brothers had finally settled their dispute. Frederick was now 18 years old, 6 feet tall and very strong from his work in the fields. Hugh Auld decided that Frederick should work as a caulker (a man who forced sealing matter into the seams in a boat's hull to make it water tight) to earn his keep. He was hired out to a local shipbuilder so that he could learn the trade. While apprenticing at the shipyard, Frederick was harassed by white workers who did not want blacks, slaves or free, competing with them for jobs. One afternoon, a group of white apprentices beat up Frederick and nearly took out one of his eyes. Hugh Auld was angry when he saw what had happened and attempted to press charges against the assailants. However, none of the shipyard's white employees would step forward to testify about the beating. Free blacks had little hope of obtaining justice through the southern court system, which refused to accept a black person's testimony against a white person. Therefore, the case had to be dropped.

After Frederick recovered from his injuries, he began apprenticing at the shipyard where Hugh Auld worked. Within a year, he was an experienced caulker and was being paid the highest wages possible for a tradesman at his level. He was allowed to seek his own employment and collect his own pay, and at the end of each week he gave all his earnings to Hugh Auld. Sometimes he was allowed to keep a little money for himself. But as time passed, he became resentful of having to give up his hard earned pay.

In Frederick's spare time he met with a group of educated free blacks and indulged in the luxury of being a student again. Some of the free blacks formed an educational association called the East Baltimore Mental Improvement Society, which Frederick had been admitted to. This is where Frederick learned his debating skills. At one of the society's meetings, Frederick met a free black woman named Anna Murray. Anna was a few years older than Frederick and was a servant for a wealthy Baltimore family. Although Anna was a plain, uneducated woman, Frederick admired her qualities of thriftiness, industriousness and religiousness. Anna and Frederick were soon in love and in 1838 they were engaged.

Love and courtship increased Frederick's discontent with his status. After Frederick's escape attempt, Thomas Auld had promised him that if he worked hard he would be freed when he turned 25. But Frederick did not trust his master, and he resolved to escape. However, escaping would be very difficult due to professional slave catchers patrolling the boarders between slave states and free states, and free blacks traveling by train or steamboat had to carry official papers listing their name, age, height, skin color, and other distinguishing features. In order to escape, Frederick needed money to pay for traveling expenses. Frederick arranged with Hugh Auld to hire out his time, that is, Frederick would take care of his own room and board and pay his master a set amount each week, keeping any extra money for himself. This also gave him the opportunity to see what it was like living on his own.

This arrangement had been working out quite well until Frederick returned home late one night and failed to pay Hugh Auld on time. Auld was furious and revoked his hiring-out privilege. Frederick was so enraged over this that he refused to work for a week. He finally gave in to Auld's threats, but he also made a resolution that in three weeks, on September 3, 1838, he would be on a northbound train. Escaping was a difficult decision for Frederick. He would be leaving his friends and his fairly comfortable life in Baltimore forever. he did not know when and if he would see Anna Murray again. Furthermore, if he was caught during his escape, he was sure that he would be either killed or sold to slave traders. Taking all of this into consideration, Frederick was resolved to escape to freedom.

With money that he borrowed from Anna, Frederick bought a ticket to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He also had a friend's "sailor's protection," a document that certified that the person named on it was a free seaman. Dressed in a sailor's red shirt and black cravat, Frederick boarded the train. Frederick reached northern Maryland before the conductor made it to the "Negro car" to collect tickets and examine papers. Frederick became very tense when the conductor approached him to look at his papers because he did not fit the description on them. But with only a quick glance, the conductor walked on, and the relieved Frederick sank back in his seat. On a couple of occasions, he thought that he had been recognized by other passengers from Baltimore, but if so they did not turn him in to the authorities.

Upon arriving in Wilmington, Delaware, Frederick then boarded a steamboat to Philadelphia. Even after stepping on Pennsylvania's free soil, he knew he was not yet safe from slave catchers. He immediately asked directions to New York City, and that night he took another train north. On September 4, 1838, Frederick arrived in New York City. Frederick could not find the words to express his feelings of leaving behind his life in slavery. He later wrote, "A new world had opened upon me." "Anguish and grief, like darkness and rain, may be depicted, but gladness and joy, like the rainbow, defy the skill of pen or pencil."

Posted by: Payshun | March 16, 2008 10:43 PM

"You all can read about Frederick Douglass here.
history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part1.html "

This guy had ten lives worth in one . Another reason I like him is in the fact he spoke up for the Irish !!I knew downdeep he was one of mine !
In 1892 the Haitian government appointed Douglass as its commissioner to the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition. He spoke for Irish Home Rule and on the efforts of Charles Stewart Parnell. He briefly revisited Ireland in 1886. He might have meant my Grand Uncles , eiter case , its nice once in awhile to read about Americans who left this earth better off then they found it .

Happy Saint Patrick's Day TOO

Mick

Posted by: Mick | March 17, 2008 12:00 AM

Do not beholden yourself blindly to a political entity. Do not Accept their promises without results or become a slave in the name of the party for you'll end up an impoverished tool for other people's success

Frederick Douglass

Posted by: MOF | March 17, 2008 1:44 AM

I have to admit I never envisioned a debate over singing "God bless America;" although I do understand both points of view; and I learned from both.

The issue is not the song--but the heart behind it. If I get even a taste of either the true goodness of God's blessing on a nation, or the awful repulsion of an idolatrous "All my blessings demonstrate my god status"; the overwhelming strength of that taste pushes me away from even considering the opposite flavor could occur in me while I sing the same song.

RE Frederick Douglass

One phrase that caught my heart in the recent posting was one of the "mild" cruelties: "he was hurt the most that his grandmother, considered too old for any work, was evicted from her cabin and sent into the woods to die

Paul J earlier posted note from Trinity UCC'c bulletin re: a three-phase response to the murder of seventeen children in Chicago this year. Paul's response was to attempt a joke about gun control efforts.

Paul, I know your point about gun contol, but what I want you to hear is that to me, the response is similar to the cruelty of the slaveowner. Not the cruelty committed against the grandmother--but the cruelty against the little boy who had been raised by this woman having to watch her evicted into the woods to die.

When folks express their pain, when a church attempts to embrace the pain of seventeen murders and make a productive response, and the response is to just be blown off with a sarcastic comment; what is heard is a complete disregard for seventeen lives.

Trinity UCC made no demand of you to respond to the murders. They issued no complaint. You search for what they are doing and then dismiss it as silliness. For what?

Today a Christian talk-show host, who I find has a wonderful spirit and good mind, made a heartfelt plea that we ought walk in Christian unity and not see Black and White.........Which I wholeheartedly agree.

But what is the occasion of the appeal? A Black preacher makes comments that breaks her ideal of walking hand in hand. He is the problem. The messenger is the problem.

Whites (like me) don't live in a Black and White world. We just live in the world--not occupied with such divisiveness (that is the privilege of being part of dominant culture). Oblivious to the fact we created and uphold the division. Whiteness only means "not-colored." Racism makes another "less than." So we create a divided world in which some are less than, don't hear them point this out (until someone like Dr. Wright gets in our face, and even then only listen to snippets because there is suddenly a Black face looking at the Whitehouse) and then appeal for all to act as Christians.

Which amounts to all returning to a peaceable facade in which whites can lead color-blind lives and forget about the folks we defined as "the other". It is to have made people invisible--and keep them there; all based on an appeal to live in Christian peace and unity. This is systemic racism.

What strikes me is the innocence of the ugliness.

The problem is Dr. Wright's attitude, his demeanor, using the wrong words, being too angry, belonging to the wrong denomination, being divisive, etc. Really?

"Oh, no, no, no. We just think all Christian leaders ought to uphold a Christian standard of how they speak. That's all this is about." Really?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 6:23 AM

Paul,

I am perfectly happy if you wish to campaign against Obama. I don't even grasp the point of your last post. I guess the point is Obama is Black.

I was aware of that.

And yes, I do realize you know his middle name.

And I find your posts increasingly offensive. To me, you are lashing out and not even sure what you are lashing at. For your sake I hope you stop. For the sake of the conversation you are demonstrating what racism looks like, even though you think you are finding nuggets of condemning evidence of something. Evidence of what--maybe you could clarify.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 7:25 AM

Diana Butler Bass and Jeremiah Wright are two theologically liberal peas in a pod. Each a theological pedigree that demonstrates they give only lip service to the Word of God.

She's straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. She and Wright are part of the religious establishment that the Lord Jesus would censure.

Doc

Posted by: Doc | March 17, 2008 10:25 AM

I would find it impossible to believe that any African American in their younger years would not have thoughts and feelings like those quoted here. What is most telling about those quotes is how far Senator Obama has grown in relation to them. It actually shows how much people can overcome and be healed.

As far as the statement about Pastor Wright I have had many men and women in my life that were surrogate father's and mother's, or older sisters and brothers to me. Their role in my life was valuable and has born much good in my life to this day. That said, I actually cannot think of one of them with whom I have not vehemently disagreed with, or at times have not gone nose to nose with on some issue, usually on a topic that was either racial or theological in some regard. These conflicts do not mean I have stopped listening to them, and they certainly do not mean I have stopped loving them and cherishing their role in my life. I am quite sure I am not the only person who has had this kind of history with their mentors, or with their fathers, mothers and close friends.
For anyone to say this is not the truth of Senator Obama's relationship with Pastor Wright says more about them than it does Senator Obama. It shows a desire only to tear the man down and that they fear him deeply.
Paul, your comments look to me to be of this nature.
By the way, as of this time I am still a Republican and my vote goes to Senator McCain. I look forward to this Presidential campaign. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination I think we may get to hear about real choices and real ideas. I am not so sure of that happening if Senator Clinton is the nominee.
She brings far too much baggage to the ticket for me. I fear that her nomination will just devolve into a mud slinging contest. Her tactics as of late seem to support that idea and when added to the harsh feelings she engenders among conservatives I can't imagine any other outcome. I think it would be very detrimental to the nation for this to occur. If she were to win the Presidency I would foresee political dead lock and partisanship.
I do not say this because I want Senator McCain to win as I think Senator Obama would be the most formidable of the two democratic choices for him to defeat.
If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, or is even Senator Obama's running mate, I think McCain has a very good chance of succeeding.

Posted by: wayne | March 17, 2008 10:28 AM

I'm sorry folks, but the rants about "God d**n America, about how AIDS was developed by the CIA, about how the US knew about Pearl Harbor, that's all just too rich. Given how African Americans have been mistreated in this country I think we should be quick to forgive, but even after adjusting for all that I find it hard to see Jeremiah Wright on the same level as King or Douglas.

King and Douglas were angry and justly so, but they did not let their anger short-circuit their capacity for reason, and they showed real interest in reconciliation and redemption for the larger society. In all the defenses of Wright, I have yet to see any indication that Wright ever broaches that subject. This isn't merely radical, it's indicative of an anti-Christian mindset; the Christian may be a harsh critic, but he still leaves the door open to repentance and redemption.

Wright is out-of-control -- and by that I don't mean he is a challenge to white society, but that he lacks self-control. As a consequence, he is at least as much of a threat to black society as to whites. Witness Barack Obama, whose Presidential campaign is damaged by his association to Wright.

I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to sing "God D**n America?" Is there nobody more deserving of the praise of a Christian minister than the Black Muslim Louis Farrakhan?

Ministers may make angry denunciations, but they don't try to be provocative, they try to tell the Truth.

Whether it's fair to attribute Wright's views to Obama or not, I think it's time to recognize Wright for who he is: a blowhard and an embarassment to the church in general and the black church in particular. I think it's time for the progressive church in particular to take a stand against the overheated rhetoric and paranoid rantings of Jeremiah Wright.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 17, 2008 10:38 AM

I didn't say he did. But he couched it in terms of moving beyond politics and such that make it sound as though he is a political moderate. If you are denying that this is part of his appeal, I don't know what to day.

Again, that's a matter of your personal perspective -- to you there's only "liberal" and "conservative," and since the former is always bad and the latter is always good everyone is supposed to move toward the right. Well, that's not going to happen today; remember, Ronald Reagan is dead and people are moving left -- if that weren't true this blog wouldn't exist.

Kennedy, Falwell and Dobson have made many comments that were not as inflamitory or devisive as Wrights and you blasted them with a 12 gage when a Beebee gun would have done the job.

You think? For openers, no one would even know who Wright was except that he was pastor of the church where a presidential candidate attends, while the other guys were political players with large followings and raised a ton of $$$; besides, they claimed to speak for all Christians. Wright, on the other hand, has never pretended to. Furthermore, Wright's views are, contrary to popular opinion, not isolated -- go to any black barbershop and you'll hear some of the same rhetoric.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 11:10 AM

Wolverine,

Lay off the hyperbole, please. Wright is a threat to no one. His message is not what you think it is. His message is pro-black empowerment but not anti-white. He said that rich white people always make the decisions and control the country. It's true. We all know that. When 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth anyone can see where power and decision making lie. Saying it out loud doesn't make him anti-white.

It makes him honest. What's so hard to understand about that? Nowhere in his message has he said that white people are evil, that they suck... He did the one thing black men and women are not allowed to do in this society and that's say the nation is not great. He pronounced the great evils of our history and did it in a way that is not cultural acceptable. For many of you it looks he danced on top of the graves of our founding fathers and did it in glee. He did not. Trust me on that. His glee was in the expression, not in the content. There is nothing happy about recounting the sins of this great and broken land.

Paul,

If Obama had a secret agenda to hate white people he would not have joined the US senate and worked with white people. You're being paranoid.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 17, 2008 11:35 AM

"Ministers may make angry denunciations, but they don't try to be provocative, they try to tell the Truth."
Mod lad
Sometimes the prophet uses anger and deliberately tries to provoke. Look at Elijah's taunting of the prophets of Baal. "Is Baal going to the bathroom" is a very polite translation of what I think he actually said. Jesus himself used harsh words that were very provocative, words that we translate with delicacy so as not to offend the current religious readers, but that at the time were clearly meant to be offensive and/or shocking.
God himself is not offended by our words as much as I think He is by our obfuscation of our own history and judgment of the victim. You/I can hear the anger and react in such a way that understands without agreeing with the statement. This has been said over and over again, but those who want to link this to the Obama campaign do not want to do let it go. Perhaps they have more than just patriotism as their motivation? Perhaps they are just not as humble as Mick. (thanks Mick, I think you are the first person I have ever read here who has admitted to having changed their mind on this site, myself included. I really respect you for doing so.)
In either case Pastor Wrights words say nothing about Senator Obama.

Posted by: wayne | March 17, 2008 11:50 AM

"Again, that's a matter of your personal perspective -- to you there's only "liberal" and "conservative,""

That's not true. There are plenty of moderates. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ben Nelson are moderates. Obama pitches himself to be of a similar ilk. He is not.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 17, 2008 12:03 PM

Here's an article from the Phila. Inquirer that is worth reading.

My son forwarded the article to me. He's attending the Lutheran seminary there (the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia or LTSP). Not mentioned in the article is the fact that Dr. Wright's father (the late Jeremiah Wright Sr.) received a master of sacred theology degree at LTSP in 1949. He was the first African-American graduate of the seminary. The seminary's endowed chair of African-American studies is named after the senior Wright. And the junior Wright, the center of the current controversy, is that endowment's chief fundraiser.

This an issue that definitely does not lend itself to sound-byte treatment. I would urge all to withhold judgment on Dr. Wright without examining much more data than we have seen.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080317_A_man_of_the_cloth_____and_controversy.html?adString=ph.news/news_update;!category=news_update;&randomOrd=031708063939

Posted by: Don | March 17, 2008 12:52 PM

"To me, you are lashing out and not even sure what you are lashing at"

I am lashing out at the people here defending Obama and Wright.

Its really simple - there are people here (Obama included) who know all too well about the Rev and make no excuses about it. They support him and his agenda, and I believe his agenda is racist.

"For the sake of the conversation you are demonstrating what racism looks like, even though you think you are finding nuggets of condemning evidence of something. Evidence of what--maybe you could clarify."

Evidence that Obama holds the same views as Wright and that his public denunciation of him is a lie.

I mean, please stop dancing around the issue.

This is a plain as the nose on your face. And now you use the racist label against me in order to smear me.

And furthermore, even though I copied and pasted those quotes including Obama's middle name, I see no issue whatsoever in questioning Obama's middle name. What does he have to fear about explaining his Muslim heritage? He should be championing it!

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Because I am not running for President of the United States in a time of war against Islamo-fascism.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 17, 2008 1:17 PM

What does he have to fear about explaining his Muslim heritage? He should be championing it!

He doesn't have a Muslim heritage -- that's the point that was made on a different thread. His namesake father was a nominal Muslim and that was it. In fact, I would submit in that part of the world there are any number of Christians with the name "Hussein" (or a variation thereof).

Because I am not running for President of the United States in a time of war against Islamo-fascism.

There is no such animal.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Because I am not running for President of the United States in a time of war against Islamo-fascism.Posted by: Paul Jamieson

Yeah, Obama is probably just trying to hide his middle name from bigots.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 17, 2008 1:55 PM

"There is no such animal."

Ok, so now I know who I am dealing with.

"So you think that a candidate with an Islamic middle name by that mere fact alone is unqualified to be president at this time?"

No - but I do think his background and heritage are fair game. And when Wright and Farrakhan are involved even more so.

Why doesn't Obama champion his name?

Why do people so vehemently deny the muslim connection? You liberals seem have a bigger problem with it than I do.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 17, 2008 2:55 PM

"And he is not a radical either."

I didn't say he was a radical, or imply it. He is liberal, however, which does not place his ideology outside of the mainstream, but does portend toward a difficult election.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 17, 2008 3:06 PM

Mick,

You are great but I think Paul has had enough slack. We wouldn't want him to hang himself.

Paul doesn't seem to show any respect for Senator Obama, alleging that his nominal connection to Islam places the country in danger or that he has some secret racist agenda to ignore white Americans. He has been extremely disrespectful to anyone that supports the principles Obama stands for. Not only that be he keeps lying about it.

Paul,

We don't have an issue with the name. You were the one that brought it up. You're the one that has made it a national security issue, it was not us liberals. Besides I think I am the only true liberal you are referring to. I don't think Don, N.M. Rod or even Rick would call himself that. So before you tar and feather us read the posts.

Every point you made has been refuted. You were using his midddle name to slander him and you did not even care. You were the one that inferred that he is secretly a Muslim when it has been made clear that he is not. You were the one claiming that he can't be trusted when he has done nothing to earn your distrust. You were the one that made his ethnic heritage an issue. That's on you.

Kevin,

He is a liberal and not a very good one at that. He's in the middle of liberal spectrum. He is not as liberal as Dennis Kucinich but definitely (in my view) a step up from Mrs. Clinton.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 17, 2008 3:25 PM

EXCUSE ME -- but when Falwell said 9/11 was punishment for the nation's sins he got plastered all over the headlines for being offensive -- and he only spoke the truths he was raised with.

I don't believe 9/11 happened as punishment for our sins or because of white America. We have enemies -- that's all.

As for Obama attending a church where that kind of thing came from the pulpit -- well -- I wouldn't stay in that church if that kind of thing was said more than once.

Long after I had moved away, my white church back in the Chicago area refused to sell their building to a black congregation. I was mortified, ashamed and stunned that people I loved deeply could do such a thing. But defend them? Never. Not for a second have I ever even felt a bit sympathetic to those who voted against the sale.

Racial hatred is still alive in this country, and it comes from all sides -- even from some people you respect -- ar at least did before they let their true position slip. We cannot defend hatred just because the minority is the one doing it.

I've read the predictions -- I'm going to be the minority before I reach old age -- and it won't be right for me to hate the new majority or to do anything to fuel that hatred.

I will say Obama's "disagreeing with some things his minister has said" is a little wimpy for a guy bent on bringing the country together.

Posted by: Nancy | March 17, 2008 3:36 PM

Narniaman,

Your rant makes no sense. Presidents don't participate in the black preaching tradition. Presidents aren't prophets. Prophets are sent to disturb the rulers, and presidents are rulers. I'll give Obama credit for having listened to prophetic preaching (I know, mean, awful, distateful, incendiary preaching if indeed he ever did hear such preacing), and even more for leaving it out of his campaign, where it clearly doesn't belong.

Again, Wright's words are Wright's responsibility. Obama's words are Obama's responsibility. They should not and cannot be confused with each other. Just listen to them. There is no connection between their messages.

You're playing gotcha! But all you got, in the end, is a few sound bites from a few Wright sermons.

Posted by: Richard | March 17, 2008 3:41 PM

The author's point is well taken. However, as we celebrate St. Patrick's Day, I'm reminded that St. Patrick was himself kidnapped and enslaved. He eventually escaped but forgave his oppressors and returned to them to proclaim the love and salvation of Jesus. Today, I read in Jim Wallis' "The Great Awakening" that Nelson Mandela said to a crowd two days before his inaugeration, "We are saying, Let us forget the past, let us hold hands, it is time now to begin anew. The time has come for men and women, African, colored, Indian, white, Afrikaans and English-speaking, to say we are one country, we are one people." We have a lot to learn from those two great men!

I realize that there is still inequity but I won't let anyone in my hearing talk about "they this or they that", lumping all black people into one category nor all Latinas, etc. so why is it acceptable for an African-American preacher to lump all white people together? Besides, the New Testament calls upon all Christians to turn from the "traditions of men" and follow Jesus.

Posted by: jc | March 17, 2008 3:49 PM

Dave -- I understand where you're coming from. However, the difference between hate and confrontation is whether it's personal or directed specifically toward an institution or political position, which are two different matters. Hate talks only about destruction; confrontation -- which can be a form of love -- seeks change and reconciliation.

You're absolutely right in saying that a lot of us, myself included, dislike the religious right. However, besides basic ideological or theological disagreements, that's because of its refusal to accept correction from those outside its purview or even to listen to them, and in the process its apologists have given Christ and His Church a bad name. That to me is worth getting angry about.

BTW, I too am a "program person" (though not AA).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 3:57 PM

Good point Pastor Jim! The implication is that, because Barack is black and comes from an "unashamedly black" church he doesn't have the mental capacity to stand up for himself, let alone America. All those "black" churches are racist cults anyway, right? After all there are no "white" churches.
Why did these snippets of Wright surface now (a close race with the Clintons?) and why through Hannity-Limbaugh connection (those who,prior to Ohio, made no bones about supporting Hillary out of fear of Barak)? Or am I sounding too much like Rev Wright here?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 17, 2008 4:12 PM

Paul Jamieson wrote: "I am not running for President of the United States in a time of war against Islamo-fascism."

If there is any nation on Earth that embodies such a thing as "Islamo-fascism", it is Saudi Arabia.

Not only is the government of Saudi Arabia a fascist dictatorship of the worst kind -- ie. an absolute hereditary monarchy -- that happens to be "Islamic", but Saudi Arabia is the fountainhead of the so-called "global jihadist" terrorism represented by Al Qaeda and its ilk. Fourteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama Bin Laden, as are the majority of the so-called "Al Qaeda In Iraq" militants. Moreover, Al Qaeda has been and still is heavily funded by Saudi Arabian aristocrats.

And the United States is not at war with Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, the United States considers the Islamo-fascist government of Saudi Arabia to be a major ally, and supplies that government with many millions of dollars in military aid -- not to mention billions of dollars in oil revenues.

So, what exactly does your alleged "war against Islamo-fascism" consist of? Other than the self-serving, manipulative, deliberately dishonest rhetoric used by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush to justify long-planned wars of unprovoked aggression to seize control of the world's major oil supplies?

Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

Running like the wind is a noble act if you don't want to be associated with a church that teaches false truths. Jesus says a lot about false prophets -- and I agree -- you probably want to make sure you know where the false statement was coming from -- if he just mispoke or what--before you run.

I know of a church that jokingly said blacks couldn't be saved, 'because in Him no darkness dwells.' Would you want me to stay with that congregation? It's my brother's church -- and talking doesn't change him. He says it's not offensive, it's funny. I don't believe the Spirit led him to say it.

I fully expect Obama, and every other person, to stand up for themselves and their convictions -- I would hope he would do so even if it is an election year. Some white churches have poor or no teaching and some black churches (or any other color) have poor or no teaching. I personally like a church that looks like my neighborhood -- a broad mix of ages, colors, economic brackets and political views. It still has to teach the truth or I don't want to be a part of it. If they said Hillary's minister did something similar -- I'd be upset about that too.

I do believe we confront people only when we think it will do some good. Other than that -- you let them go on like a crazy old uncle...

Posted by: Nancy | March 17, 2008 5:11 PM

BTW- what is a "holocaust of sorts" (Mick

What happened to the Native Americans in this country . If you look on the west coast , which has a rich history compared what we really know of the east coast , the multitudes that died by disease because of our presence is beyond really an ability to calculate . The millions? that died were do to disease . Nations built on fishing were basically wiped out within one generation out here .

Many native Americans were treated as animals by American policy and people , many tribes were treating each other as animals . I just thought it is different compared to the Halocaust by Nazi germany . Diffent components , no not a good historical record by the GOVERNMENT of this country , but not the gas chamber deal either.

I have been to a few museaums That will not give you exactly the Yankee Doodle Dandy experience , in fact I do recall spending about 5 hrs in Victoria Canada in a museum that was basically a testament to a lost people , that our text books still have problem dealing with .

I happen to see native Americans as great American Patriots , I guess I have a weird view of seeing those that our government screwed over as being examples of why America has been a blessed nation . We have some very strong and courgeous people in it . From all cultures and walks of life. Instead of hating America for our blunders , I tend to see the Native People who fought to keep their culture as an example of great Americans .

I am hopeless I admit .

Posted by: Mick | March 17, 2008 5:19 PM

Thanks DBB for an insightful post. I will share it with a few folks. Thanks also to Stephanie Berry, Ms. Cynthia, Letjusticerolldown and a few others for keeping the conversation centered on the problem at hand: white people's irrational and deeply cherished fears about what they don't and won't try to understand.

Listening to the kind of vitriolic hatred coming from white persons - christian and non-christian alike - has been downright frightening to me. There's a kind of mob mentality that is emerging that really harkens back to some of the worst moments in American history. Just in case I had put on blinders and thought for a second that because Barack Obama is a contender for the presidency, that this the US had become a more open and affirming society, that black people in the US were considered full citizens, and were entitled to having their core identities and histories recognized and respected, I have been surely disabused of such a notion.

The majority of white people talking here and who have ever gone to church only worship in racially segregated settings, and have never step foot in a church where you were not a member of the racial majority of that congregation. And yet, religious practice in the US is not political? We are supposed to believe that what happens in white churches is not at all dangerous, heretical in relation to the status quo or even remotely political. White churches are just well, ordinary. In fact, the danger in too many white churches in the US is that they are slaves to the status quo, and reaffirm white supremacy in conscious and unconscious ways, down to refusing to recognize the ways in which their worship practices are informed by the history of racism in this society. Yes, that would be the baseline for deciding that a "black preacher" somehow doesn't know the Word and only knows how to shout and perform, but we can assume that any white preacher would. And the list goes on...

Apparently, Black Christian people are also supposed to remember to follow the rules that white people invariably conjure up after the fact: don't say or do anything that white people did not tell you to say, or approve beforehand, or will not be happy about. Well, we know that at least one person - Rev. Wright -- and a whole lot of congregants who go to that church and many others -- doesn't believe that crap, and won't be made to conform.

Say and speculate what you will, until you get your backsides to TUCC and sit there through a worship service or two, all these words of disgust and hatred are merely hot air. Yes, in combination all this hot air can blow up quite a storm, as it currently is. And there will probably be some damage, but it will be the ignorance and deep-seated hatred and distrust of black people that makes this happen. And once again, you will have managed to reinforce the notion that white people simply cannot bear to live in any other society except a racist one.

But all you white folks who are fretting about the black armageddon, you should calm down and realize something:

black church folks and white progressives who have a clue know what time it is. And we don't and won't give up this small battle or the bigger war just because some white people don't like when one of the outsiders speaks truth to power. Yes, as our faith leads us to believe, we will get on our knees and pray, we will also sing, fast, reason, read, shout, march and carry on. You can persecute Rev. Wright and TUCC all you want; our prayers and forms of resistance will bear him up. You can't destroy our history, our traditions, or our sheer determination to keep on. We've withstood a few centuries of these sentiments about us "not knowing our place" and "not asking for permission to speak our piece"; we can get through this one too. Trust me on this one.

Posted by: Gelede | March 17, 2008 5:55 PM

"How could you ever support someone with such a disgusting display of hypocrisy -- for President???" Narniaman

Narniaman--If you want to explore your question, I will gladly do so. Maybe you can comment on whether you see any irony in certain voices demanding Obama denounce Rev. Wright; and condemn him if he does denounce Rev. Wright?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 6:12 PM

No I am not inferring he is a secret Muslim - I am just wondering why no one wants to stand up and be proud of that heritage. I think we need more moderate people of Muslim heritage to come out and say they are proud of it and denounce the extremists.

What does that have to do with Barack? As we have said before, he is not and never has been a Muslim. Also, Islam is a religion and not necessarily a cultural heritage.

How about a sermon extolling the virtues of the brave and honorable black men and women who make up a considerable percentage of the greatest fighting force this world has ever seen?

Eldridge Cleaver wrote in "Soul on Ice," "They are asked to die for the System in Vietnam. In Watts they are killed by it." Besides, many join the military because of not only lack of job opportunities but equal opportunity for promotions etc., which are mandated in the Armed Forces.

Or how about a sermon about the great strides this country has made in racial relations since the turbulent 60's?

Conservatives, cheered by Ronald Reagan, tried to roll them back in the 1980s, and some of his supporters blatantly said they planned to do so.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 6:17 PM

"Or am I sounding too much like Rev Wright here?"

Yep, and you spelled "Barack" incorrectly.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 17, 2008 6:21 PM

Gelade--Thank you for your post. I am very sorry. I would like to write a book to explain--but trust you can simply receive my sorrow.

The love of Jesus is strong--it is the power of God. The lies of the Enemy bind us all--but, praise be to God, there is a Power that gives victory over all.

I visited TUCC many years ago (church was building existing facility at the time) and multiple staff generously and openly shared the broad and rich ministries of the church with me.

Let justice roll down like a river;
and righteousness like a quiet stream.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 6:39 PM

Pastor Jeff Staples asked:

Is Rev. Wright our brother or not?

I hate to say this, but right now I can't say for certain. It would help if one of his many defenders at this supposedly evangelical website would find a sermon where Rev. Wright speaks of Christ not as the liberator of the Black race, but as the Son of God, crucified, risen, and living today as the redeemer of all mankind.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 17, 2008 6:46 PM

Pastor Jim --

UKKKSA brings Glory to God? That's hate talk. Just like the white pastor's joke. I believe with all my heart that kind of talk breeds hate -- and it makes me want to throw up. You may not draw the line there -- but I do -- as do a lot of Americans. I would not want my kids hearing it on a regular basis -- in either direction. So that makes me a rightist?

Isn't there you stuff you have that much integrity about?

Maybe it's like when Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky -- that didn't offend me at all -- I expected him to lie about that. It did however, really offend a lot of other people who've not been able to get passed it. I don't think that makes them rightist, leftist or ignorant -- in fact, I have to wonder if maybe their values are actually a little stronger than mine.

Posted by: Nancy | March 17, 2008 6:54 PM

Wolverine--I cannot speak for anyone else. For me, my posts on this line of comments have almost nothing to do with the candidacy of Obama, or the ministry of Rev. Wright.

My focus of concern is the relationship of Black Christians and White Christians; about fulfilling the redemptive purposes God desires to work through His people in this time and place.

I am not trying to be right. I am not trying to convince anyone about a certain stance towards Dr. Wright.

I do want folks to think. I have asked 9 or 10 persons questions who came at DBB or Dr Wright in a very oppositional way. Mick and Kevin were the only ones to respond.

Why does your cultural framework define a few sets of words from Dr. Wright as so fundamentally important to the future of the nation? That is not a rejection of your conclusion--but a challenge to explore your own listening.

Why in this case should your listening be challenged?

Because what DBB raises is the obvious division between Black and White Christians. Does this division grieve your spirit? Do you think it grieves Christ's Spirit?

I understand you think Dr. Wright's words add to the division.

How concerned were you with the division before Dr. Wright's words?

White Christians have a bad habit of becoming concerned with divisive behavior when the bad behavior happens to be a Black leader whose voice gets a little to loud.

Again, that is not to defend or condemn any particular "loud voice" strategies. It is just to say our culturally trained ears have a preoccupation with getting the voice to quiet down rather than to review the substance of the message.

Yes, it makes sense that we might respond more easily to a quiet, calm and reasoned voice. But--we don't.

I and others have written about the God Damn America comment. The back and forth on that apparently caused no reflection on your part. Again I am not saying you ought to have a certain conclusion on the matter. But you raise it again as if it is just self-evidently an objectionable line which has grave consequences for the Republic without acknowledging that there might even be a sensibility to it for some listeners.

You (and others) think Wright is a really big deal. That he casts some special light on Obama. It has such a "See. I knew it. Here it is. We knew it all along. I told you so." quality to your comments.

I just ask you give some quiet reflection as to what you were expecting to be there--that you have now found. What do you fear? I really don't want you to answer me. Just you. For you. And it isn't about getting you to have a different view of Obama.

I have long practiced a mental discipline in regards to racial relations. I will see a Black person doing this or that and simply ask myself, "How does this person's blackness effect my calculation of the situation." Usually it is very little. Sometimes I even lose consciousness of a persons race (I can't ever recall failing to notice a person's sex). But it has helped me become aware of my racial grid.

I presume you are a white male Christian and calculate that in what I write. I always have these calculations in play.

And finally, I do understand you know much or all of which I am written. I am lecturing you--but not really. I intend it as explanation and challenge.

I have walked this "white guy learning about racial matters" for the past 30 years. I don't know a whole lot. I have a fairly good feel for what I do know and what I don't know (I think). And if I can just be most frank, we White Christiann guys have a great big responsibility to open our ears and submit our hearts--not because someone else is always right, or because of racial guilt--but because in is our loving responsibility.

You have a heart and a mind able and open to engage. I'm attempting to give you a big kick in the behind--but please know it is out of love.

And if you jump out of the way and I land on some Minnesota ice--I'm OK with that.

Blessings

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 7:38 PM

Why do some people insist on identifying themselves as Rev. or Pastor or Father or Bubba on this thread?

I always thot the American Const/BoR said something about "all men are created equal."

I appreciate knowing the qualifications/occupations of the people who make the original posts. Beyond that, I don't give a rat's patootie what you wear around your neck.

Posted by: canucklehead | March 17, 2008 7:49 PM

Don,

First off, I didn't judge anybody, I specifically withheld judgment: "I can't say for certain" means just that. Even if it somehow were up to me to decide this issue, I'd need to see more before I made up my mind.

If you find this uncertainty troubling, well, I find many of Rev. Wright's teachings troubling, for reasons that go beyond race and politics.

Consider the quote that Rev. Zack found from James Cone, another leader in the Black Liberation Theology school:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Now, Don, if the races were reversed, and a white preacher were to say he had no interest in a god who was not for whites against blacks, I'll bet you would be offended by the halfheartedness of anyone who couldn't say anything stronger than "Geez, I'm not completely sure this guy's a Christian."

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 17, 2008 7:56 PM

Wolverine,

Historically white pastors did that for centuries, hell some of them still do. The only way your critique works is if you throw out history. Context counts but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter here. I wonder why.

As for black liberation theology:
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html

A white guy wrote that page.

My point is that it's not a dead end. It actually empowers black Christians to understand the plight of the poor around the world and their own plight. It seeks to make sure that the continuing brain washing found in most forms of protestant Christianity stops. That's not a bad thing regardless of your rhetoric.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 17, 2008 8:05 PM

answer the questions Rick. I know, you can't.

"I know this happens -- I saw it personally"

Too bad you don't have audio, huh Rick.

Do you realize that moderate to conservative Democrats were elected in 2006 Rick?

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 17, 2008 8:30 PM

Historically white pastors did that for centuries, hell some of them still do.

They were, and are, wrong for doing so.

The only way your critique works is if you throw out history. Context counts but for some reason that doesn't seem to matter here. I wonder why.

I'm quite aware of the historical context. That's part of why I said "I don't know" rather than "There's no way this guy could be a Christian." (I'd be less charitable to a white supremacist who tried so bluntly to enlist God in his or her campaign against blacks.) The anger is understandable, but I'm not sure that it's healthy, at least taken to the point that Wright takes it.

I read your article, and while not as blatant as the quotes from Cone, it leaves me with questions:

Do black liberation theologians teach the fallibility of mankind as a whole? On a related note, what am I to make of the approving quote of Malcolm X to the effect that the white man is "the devil"?

Am I to take it that the only way to make Christianity relevant to blacks is to focus on the sins of whites? Does this carry to the point where the thought that blacks may have moral faults of their own to repent is downplayed?

In their eagerness to make Jesus relevant to blacks, do Black Liberation Theologians downplay or lose sight of important truths behind Jesus life and ministry? Doesn't that lead to a warped view of Jesus too?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 17, 2008 9:05 PM

Rev. Staples,

If your sense of self-worth and faith in God rested, inter alia, on the belief that "the government created AIDS and crack to kill your family and culture", then your emotional and spiritual foundations are built on a lie. Even if that lie is a well-intentioned one, you are like the house built on sand, and when the storm comes and the water shifts the sands around and the winds push on the walls, it's just a matter of time before your house collapses.

This is not empowerment, it's cruelty. If I were a Klansman I would be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to ensure that African-Americans remained ghettoized, isolated, wretched, and poor than to feed them a steady diet of slanders about the larger society. The fact that they have legitimate beefs against whites only makes the slanders more believable, and hence more poisonous.

Please people, think this through: if the truth is so damning, why does anyone need lies?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 17, 2008 9:28 PM

Wolverine: As has been asked before, I ask again please document the lie(s). When that young man finds out about the Tuskegee experiment, how big of a stretch is it to suggest a racial/government connection to AIDS or crack (a new one to me).
In any case, their sense of self worth is grounded in an intentional commitment and relationship with Jesus Christ and not in political applications and their faith is solidly grounded in God's Word.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 17, 2008 10:04 PM

"Please people, think this through: if the truth is so damning, why does anyone need lies?"

Now that Wolverine, I find to be a valuable contribution far beyond the confines of this thread.

I guess that could be asked to any of us, and any government, that presents 'convincing cases' using lies.

And I agree it can apply to J Wright. And I think it to be our first task to understand the message; and then assess whether a statement fully fits.

Have you ever heard tapes of 911 calls, where a caller is in desperate, current danger for their life, and the operator gets offended because they are "out of control." You hear the desperation of a person in great harm and a person responsible to dispatch help sounds absolutely ridiculous making demands on the caller to change how they are speaking.

If Wright believes AIDS is a government conspiracy, he is not a threat to the country. Conspiracy theories are quite popular in the Black community; and I do think straight-spoken truth is better. But that is my cultural judgement. I think when you grasp how the conspiracies actually fit in a broader critique they can be more truthful than they appear at first glance.

A delineation of government duplicity/engagment in systemic evil is more damning than saying there is a conspiracy. The conspiracy becomes rhetorical shorthand for explaining a complex system.

In this discussion I could say, "OK , Kevin, Dr. Wright is wrong about the origin of AIDS (by the way, was the origin ever determined??)."

Then what??

I guess everything is solved. Wright is the problem.

And we go on our merry way.

And what about the fundamental relationship and understanding issue between Black and White Christians which DBB targeted and which I have been writing about?

Well there is no misunderstanding because everybody agrees Wright's ten statments (or how ever many there are) are wrong. Since he is the problem--the problem is fixed.

And in this case Obama is the ultimate problem. So we get rid of Wright and Obama based on how some other folks think Wright ought to speak. And in your mind that is objective truth-telling. For many it looks like racism

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 17, 2008 11:19 PM

"When that young man finds out about the Tuskegee experiment, how big of a stretch is it to suggest a racial/government connection to AIDS or crack (a new one to me)."

A big one, given that it isn't true, and that both epidemics have had a profoundly negative effect on white people.

"Going back to the original reason that Diana posted this, shouldn't we be learning how we can understand instead of acting so confident that we are right and he is wrong?"

Understanding someone and believing someone is wrong are not mutually exclusive.

"Who gave you the right, Wolverine, to question Barack's choice of a church? "

Obama is running for public office, partly on the strength of his ties to his church. That makes it fair play in my book.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 12:13 AM

Found this , thought it had something to do with the conversation . I think possibly the confusion is also that many of us believe things are getting better . Which I believe they are , but also I always thought they were . Which Wolverine and Kev is part of the issue I think . Its almost like one day we woke up to the racist injustice and told the black man it was Ok to come out now and they said , yeah right .We will take care of our own thank you very much . Not saying that is right , but I guess maybe that is how it is .

James Hal Cone, an important African-American theologian, has said that black spirituals celebrated visions of heavenly reward to affirm what it means to be fully human in an earthly context where love, justice and liberation were rarely realized. From the gospel stories the slaves knew about God's love and justice; they spoke of their heavenly home as the place where they would finally and fully experience these truths. To mind the "things above" is to hope for an inheritance that reverses socioeconomic conditions on earth, where many people are oppressed and denied humanity. Significantly, the spiritual songs of American slaves were mostly composed in the fields of hard labor rather than in the churches of earnest worship. They expressed the real reason slaves continued to work well in spite of terrible treatment: they minded the One above in the confident hope that he realized their true value and would one day give them back their humanity. In this limited but profound sense, they shared a rich koinonia with their Christian counterparts in ancient Colosse.And Masters

Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 12:27 AM

"After all, it has been alleged that white conservatives have taken advantage of black conservatives -- using Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell to spread false consciousness and make blacks feel shame about black culture.

It's more insidious than that. Conservatives know full well they'll never reach the majority of black folks, so their real target is the white "moderate"

The hope is for African Americans to adopt conservatism . Obviously they haven't . The fact Judge Thomas is on the Supreme Court and because Obama has a good chance to be President , recently diminished, is not because their black .

Thomas has views consistent with Constructionist Legal understanding , Obama would be effective also if he happen to be white .
With Thomas is was his Constructionist View and legal resume , and he got through a democratic majority to boot . Politics yes , but you misrepresnt his value and self worth as a man .

You do that solely based on idealogy and race .
For me to dismiss the people here who say they know Christ and for me to say they are insideous because of the political party they believe most represent their Christian values is exactly how you come off when you say a Black man who agrees with smaller government
Believes the Constitution is what it is and it is to not to be adapted to change because our culture has . We still should be voting on those issues .

The black population has for decades now been taken for granted by the democratic party , I would think you would agree with that actually .
I bet Reverend Wright would say the same thing .
You do much defending of the democrats , and much condemnation of the Gop .

One day African Americans may just be so independent that your beliefs will be the sell out view .

And yeah I would defend you .

Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 1:01 AM

"If I was a black child in that congregation I would feel that someone had explanations for the violence in my neighborhood, why my mom had such urgency when we had the "this is what to do when the police stop you" talk, why my cousins got flooded out and are still living in squalor. I would learn that Jesus understands being black and in a single parent home with the scornful looks from questionable fatherhood. I would learn to not trust smooth talking politicians and everyone else who smiles and makes a promise. It would explain why my brother was killed in a drive by related to crack and gangs and why my great grampa was lynched. And I would grow up with an anger toward inhumanity and injustice. I might even grow to hate those evils as much as God does. And I would be a wise young man. (Remember the fear of the Lord is to hate evil. and The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom). I would know the value of the brotherhood and the "beloved community". I would understand that the church is a place of truth and courage. And then with my dignity in place, I might even run for president one day."

PASTOR JEFF, that comment was PROFOUND! There ARE a different set of rules that a Black person must follow to succeed in this country. Black churches have historically been a "school" for learning those rules. Black churches provide "reality checks". White America tends to want to ignore the fact that those reality checks are necessary. But they are. And thank God there are places where those who are down-trodden (and often in an systematic way) can go to find others with similar experiences and to find a God who identified with people in that same circumstance.

Posted by: Loliz | March 18, 2008 1:52 AM

Hi all,

I asked if there is a racial problem that has polarised the American church, along with politics and everything else, and got no response here.

But,

As I read the numerous comments this is what I see from my vantage point in East Africa, where denial of our tribal problem, especially in the church, can and is carried out in intellectually stimulating ways. Well, denial is still denial.

Now, I realise how difficult it is for me to get your attention, so may I please ask you all to take a minute or two and find Frank Schaeffer's
article in the Huffington Post blog.

Here is a portion (CAPITALISATION MINE):

"WHEN SENATOR OBAMA'S PREACHER THUNDERED ABOUT RACISM AND INJUSTICE OBAMA SUFFERED SMEAR-BY-ASSOCIATION. BUT WHEN MY LATE FATHER -- RELIGIOUS RIGHT LEADER FRANCIS SCHAEFFER -- DENOUNCED AMERICA AND EVEN CALLED FOR THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE US GOVERNMENT, HE WAS INVITED TO LUNCH WITH PRESIDENTS FORD, REAGAN AND BUSH, SR."

He goes on ...

"Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton."

Ladies and gentlemen,

I believe I have my answer.

The problem over there seems to be a subtle, 'nuanced', sophisticated form of racism that seems to permeate all American public discourse.

Over here it is much cruder, of course. But prejudice is still prejudice.

May the good Lord have mercy on His church.

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | March 18, 2008 2:48 AM

Alu--Thank you for both of your posts. Both were very welcome reading to me. Some things can not be seen well by being such a distance--but other things can be seen much better, which I believe you do.

One of my hidden sorrows about the "white church's" incapacity to hear the "black church" is that I know that if we could hear better--then our hearing to much of the world would be far better. Because our hearing problem is not in what the Black church is saying but in our deafness. We say, "But if you would only say it different then we could hear."

This deafness has vastly crippled the redemptive purposes of God for this nation and for the Christian church here.

As huge a problem as this is--we could resolve it at the foot of the cross in a couple hours if we wanted to. But I guess our sins are very precious to us.

We'll have these arguments decade after decade.

But God is again opening doors and hearts here. One of my homes is in Montgomery, AL--home of much divisiveness and much hope. The church I belong to there was born out of the ministry of a missionary from Africa and is hence, not so entrenched in the American Black-White split.

Please continue to post. The persons who will get the most likely will not let you know because they are people who know how to listen, learn and grow--and may not spend their time writing.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 3:37 AM

"Actually the reason no one answered you was that we all knew you had your answer . You did not want a discourse , you wanted to dictate."

Hi,

Please identify yourself, 'Anonymous'?

There's a first, everyone here agreeing on anything.

Strange, however, that I had to find my answer from Frank Schaeffer, in the Huffington Post, and reading many posts here.

But,

I'll grant you something - discourse is something that does go on here - so much so that the original posts end up being forgotten, easily, much of the time, regardless of how 'weighty' they may be.

Look, a lot of people work hard, literally, to try to explain things here, like Payshun, letjusticeroll, etc. They are nice and polite about it, of course. Trouble is the only way I have of telling that they are on to something is my own 'history'.

I am an African in Africa, you see.

We tend to see things in, if possible, even more black and white terms than Jeremiah Wright. When any of us African Christians claims that 'the white man' sets the agenda for everything - good or bad - quite frankly, it raises no eyebrows at all.

Yes, out of polite company we can be pretty unsubtle about it too ... We do not think of ourselves (to our shame?) as being hateful, or 'unChristian', just realistic, just stating facts, the truth as we see it.

Regardless of how much we dislike this state of affairs there does seem to be a pecking order in the world that is beyond our ability to ever be able to do anything about.

The thing is 'the white man' has been and continues to be top of the heap. And, the more the African gets 'emancipated', 'educated', the more starkly one realises this, sorry ...

Possibly anger is a natural expression of the helplessness of living in an unequal planet - the fact that this is a man-made situation and that Christians have been at the fore front of the discrimination over the ages does not help matters at all, no sir!

We may have 'black' churches in response to what Payshun says was white Christians desire not to mix with blacks on Sunday morning, but what do we do about a white planet?

I am putting it in the simplest of terms because you do understand, don't you? We cannot afford 'nuance' here, in Africa. We might understand that if race was such a handicap Obama wouldn't have arrived where he has today, but we need only consider his father's village to see how gargantuan his task is ...

Is it alright for a Christian to think the way I am thinking? Does what I write mean that I hate white people? God forbid!

Conversely we do know that the world is not a paradise for ALL white people. I am generalising, of course ...

But,

Few of us expect that America, predominantly white (good Christians all), is at all ready to vote for half-African Obama, representing 13% of the population (yes, race-wise), to become President.

And, since it is a political contest, and our politics are very messy, most of us expect that every dirty trick will be used to see that he does not succeed - all the while dreaming, praying, audaciously, I guess, that God will perform a miracle!

So, you are right, 'Anonymous', I may have had my answer - all along.

Nevertheless my brief sojourn at God's Politics has taught me one thing, a lot of people here do have their answers. And they stick to them throughout lengthy and repeated doses of 'discourse'.

That is why I fear that I may never have your attention.

Maybe I am just not good at this. Having said that, 'Anonymous', can you please tell me what you think of Frank Shaeffer's article in the Huffington Post?

Was he off the mark? Or was he being realistic, just stating facts, the truth, as he sees it?

Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Rukia | March 18, 2008 5:03 AM

Hey letjusticerolldown,

Thanks!

Paul Jamieson,

I thought it was God's Politics that's regularly derided here as being liberal left wing progressive whatever? I read God's Politics and the Huffington Post. I must be a radical liberal whatnot myself.

Is it such a bad thing to be a radical liberal? Is it so funny to 'most of America'? Why?

Well, anyway,

I asked someone, might be Mick, or Jamieson, what they think of an article by the late famous evangelical, Francis Schaeffer's son, Frank Schaeffer.

It does, indeed, happen to be in the 'radical liberal' Huffington Post.

Now, once more, please ...

What do you make of the following, as posted in the Huffington Post by Frank Schaeffer?:

(CAPITALISATION MINE):

"WHEN SENATOR OBAMA'S PREACHER THUNDERED ABOUT RACISM AND INJUSTICE OBAMA SUFFERED SMEAR-BY-ASSOCIATION. BUT WHEN MY LATE FATHER -- RELIGIOUS RIGHT LEADER FRANCIS SCHAEFFER -- DENOUNCED AMERICA AND EVEN CALLED FOR THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE US GOVERNMENT, HE WAS INVITED TO LUNCH WITH PRESIDENTS FORD, REAGAN AND BUSH, SR."

He goes on ...

"Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton."

Now, Paul Jamieson,

Is Frank Schaeffer off the mark? Or is he being realistic, just stating facts, the truth?

Or,

It doesn't matter because this was in a 'radical liberal' blog?

I'm confused, I imagine.

God bless you!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | March 18, 2008 8:01 AM

Alu - here is all you need to know - Barack issued his statement about the Rev on a radical liberal Blog

My point above is vindicated. "I can't listen because it's posted on a 'liberal' blog!" No debate necessary.

By the way, I heard on NPR this morning that Barack Obama is planning to deliver a major speech on race relations sometime today. The report says this is partially a response to the circulations of Jeremiah Wright sound-bytes.

Stay tuned,

D

Posted by: Don | March 18, 2008 8:25 AM

letjusticerolldown wrote:

Try my edited version of Cone: "Righteous theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with good. If God is not for good and against evil world systems,then he is a murderer, and we had better stop asserting allegiance to such a god."

Why should I accept your edit of Cone? Why not let Cone speak for Cone?

But just for laughs -- if this is really what Cone means, then what Cone has done is replace thousands of years of Christian morality with a simple formula: anything that helps blacks against whites is good. Or as you put it yourself:

In Cone, Black is good and White is bad to knock this idol off its pedastal. To kill it. It grabs the label "Black" and makes it all good so as to completely obliterate the racist definition.

So I take it then that Cone would argue that Blackness is exempted from original sin? Or that the black church should teach this nonsense to counterbalance the lies that have come from some white churches? Did Jesus ever tell the church that it was okay to spread false teachings if it was for a good cause?

If this really were what Cone meant, then I'd have to conclude that he should be declared anathema, and that Black Liberation Theology is a heresy outside of the genuine Christian tradition. No longer in doubt, case closed.

Please, somebody tell me that this isn't quite what Cone had in mind.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 18, 2008 9:13 AM

Well, Diana, this moderate Democrat read your rationale for this kind of attack for problems in the 19th century and it doesn't convince me at all. It's almost like your just arguing for arguing's sake.

If Rev. Wright really wanted his flock to "get even" or move ahead he would tell them to get better educated, learn new skills, be more self-reliant, take on responsibility, become the employer instead employee, and learn leadership. You know like Sen. Barack Obama, Oprah, Bill Cosby, Baltimore engineer Dawn White, Oil company owner Grady Terrell, or Ken Chanault CEO of American Express.

It would be more Christlike than making one group simply despise another.

Posted by: Steve | March 18, 2008 10:00 AM

The question for me still remains - has Rev. Wright said anything from his pulpit that is a lie. An outright verifible lie? Not did he say something that hasn't been proven yet, or is controversial but a real out and out lie? Has he said anything in complete contrast to God's word? Maybe in tone yes- but in substance? Just because the rhedoric some spew out at times isn't easy to swallow for alot of us doesn't mean that it's a terribly wrong thing to endure. To be completely honest about this situation I may be more disappointed in the fact that we live in such a fragile society where a Barack Obama has to distance himself from someone that has been a friend and advisor for years because he says things that are not politically correct, and insensitive to others. Boy, if I had to do that I may not be left with many friends, and I most certainly couldn't tune in to sites like Sojo any longer to gather the varied opinions of you fine folks. Posting rules or not some things get to these pages that aren't the best of what we as humans have to offer - yet I respect your opinions as a whole. With great love/respect, doug

Posted by: Doug | March 18, 2008 10:06 AM

It's absurd that a preacher speaking up and speaking out against trauma caused to his people would be considered prejudiced!

You may not agree with him on some of his points but he's the one fighting back not launching a strike. He's addressing harm done and harm being done, he's not initiating harm.

Is it still a secret that bad things have gone on in the history within this epoch and bad things are still going on? What's with the big shock?
The Maafa is real!

Re. some of the points that some may find hard to believe such as the HIV AIDS statement; what about Tuskegee and Syphilis? Remember, this is earth NOT Heaven...and sinful earth at that! This world ain't no joke! Combine fallen human nature with the temptations of Satan and place them within the context of this sinful world with its flawed systems and troop of mess like greed, opportunism, self-interest, individualism, et al. and many strange things can happen!

Posted by: Jawanza | March 18, 2008 10:09 AM

Wolverine:
Thanks for your posts. Although I usually disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate the integrity (internal consistency) of your arguments. Black Theology is an adaptation of Liberation Theology which was actually rooted in small groups of "red letter" Latinos that gathered to see what Jesus stood for once stripped of all the trappings of "2000 years of Christian morality". They concluded, among other things, that the full application of the incarnation meant that Christ must fully enter into the state of the Oppressed(Black)and therefore any god not fully on the side of the poor must be rejected. (Please, others more knowing, correct me if in error). How many non-whites were involved in the development of this "2000 years of morality"? Is this the same "morality" that sanctioned slavery and "just wars"?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM

Alu,

Yes, racism in US Christianity is simply a historical and sociological fact. It is a long-standing understanding that Sunday morning at 11:00 am (when most American churches worship) is the most segregated hour in the week. Because we have been so separate for so long, when something like this comes up, it is very difficult to understand each other.

While I do not agree with the specific statements of Rev. Wright in these few clips from his LONG and esteemed preaching career, I do understand the context of African-American prophetic preaching of which it is a part. As a professional historian who is a Christian, I deeply believe that understanding the context of words and actions can be the first step toward reconciliation and social change.

And, thank you so much for pointing out the excellent Frank Schaeffer piece--I'd not yet seen it.

Many blessings to you, brother.

Diana Butler Bass

Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | March 18, 2008 10:42 AM

Bit hard to contribute in real time, it seems that I am 12 hours ahead of the sites time. Am sleeping or working when most of the action occurs.

Thank you Alu of Dar es Salaam

For injecting some discussion from the rest of the planet.

For contributing something that questions the basic assumptions in this debate.

I would suggest that there is a serious issue here. That is that the church in the USA has been captured by those who are confusing nationalism with Christianity. When is the expression “God D## America” taking sinful? ever? It may be in bad taste but?

The hypocrisy pointed out by some, that similar critical views are OK if presented by a respected member of the right sort of class, but is not acceptable if expressed by a member of a less respected class, is affecting the standing of the US in world affairs

The rough and tumble of the election is being played out on the international stage, and some issues particularly re race do not travel well internationally. The rapidly rising power of other nations will challenge the place and power of the US internationally and the perceptions of US citizens,. It is in the planets interest, that the US can look at things clearly and rationally. Time to look to the promise of “a sound mind’ for belivers.

Yes I am of another culture.

Posted by: JohnH | March 18, 2008 11:29 AM

DBB - educational and astute, as always; looking forward to hearing/seeing you at Kananaskis

Don - pointed, poignant and gracious, as usual; I was reminded of a couple of pals who played for the Philadelphia Flyers back in the 70s when Kate Smith used to sing "God Bless America" instead of the national anthem before Flyers' home games; they got quite a kick out of the notion of God as good-luck charm

Paul Jamieson - it's the purple kool-aid

All - reading this thread has been very insightful; I'm only sorry that Donny and Mark couldn't be here to set us all straight

Canucklehead (Pastor, Rev, Dr., Hey You, Dorqtor, Butthead, all of the above)
All - reading this post

Posted by: canucklehead | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

P --

Yes, I've been judged as a woman. I used to give the missions report once a month in my church. Every time, one man would get up and leave as I took the podium. He didn't want to hear a woman speak, even though the men in the church gave me the authority to do it.

Unlike a racial thing -- there's a lot of New Testament passages that back up his stance -- even if it was on the rude side.

I really did figure it was his problem and he'd probably grow out of it.

In other circumstances, there were those who were so narrow-minded I knew we'd never see eye-to-eye, so it was a relief to get out of that circumstance. (They basically wanted me to understand my place -- which pretty much meant I had no spiritual gifts or even a thinking mind.) While I doubt that group ever grew out of it -- and I blame John McArthur for teaching them such things -- I don't assume every church I ever go to will treat me the same way. That group was pretty ignorant. If they stay with that group they may never grow, but individuals who leave it will probably grow out of it.

Posted by: Nancy | March 18, 2008 1:58 PM

The discussion here has really taken a life of its own. I will openly admit that I did not read the massive record before this post.

I think I'll simply say this: as someone with some understanding of how American politics works, it saddens me deeply to see that this country is still not ready to contextualize and really be in the shoes of Americans who see life with completely different eyes.

Black America is ONE generation removed from rabid persecution from the KKK including lynchings and arson. Only about 40 years removed from high pressure water hoses turning on non-violent demonstrations in Birmingham, and mounted attacks on college student civil rights demonstrations. Many of those men and women who lived through that time are alive today, Americans who are proud of what they've fought for, and disgusted that civil rights has been so completely derailed. The passion and hyperbolic tone of a pastor who speaks out against such truth, from within his context, is at the very least understandable.

It does make sense for Obama to run away from those comments politically, as he must do given the state of our nation. But I think that in his speech today, he has vision and hope for the day when 1) the historic black church's prophetic voice is stilled with regard to this problem, and 2) America will not have such a reactionary stance, but approach the subject with understanding, placing a premium on unity and reconciliation above personal offense and the ruffling of feathers.

DBB's personal experience is a model that we should all humbly relate to, and I hope that more voices, not only the black church, will begin to speak out prophetically into this generation.

Posted by: Anakainosis | March 18, 2008 2:23 PM

It doesn't matter because this was in a 'radical liberal' blog

That makes it illegitimate? One man's radicalism is another's prophecy -- as if we didn't know that already.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:38 PM

Thank you Diana for a wonderful article. I have been feeling the exact same reaction to Pastor Wright and the ensuing brew-ha-ha, but lacked the patience and articulation you bring with this article. Thank you, Thank you, thank you.

As someone who has access to power in this society, I know we have a hard time giving it up. Equality of voice is not optional in the Kingdom of God. Nothing Pastor Wright said is untrue. I believe the Gospel is best expressed (closes to the words and life of Jesus) when it discomforts the powerful and encourages the less-powerful. Pastor Wright has done that!

Thanks again,
Patrick in Seattle

Posted by: Patrick Meagher | March 18, 2008 4:36 PM

Paul J: "Aalu,It doesn't matter because this was in a 'radical liberal' blog"

What a dumb thing to say; if Frankie Schaeffer did say this, of course it is significant regardless of where he posted it. I would be very pleasantly surprised to hear a conservative relgious leader put Wright's words in context. does anyone know if it is true?

Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 5:21 PM

Racism is racism, whether it is white to black or black to white. It really irritates me that there are THOSE in the black community that think because they are black it gives them a license to be racist. Don’t you realize that you have allowed your hate of the white community to turn your behavior into the very thing you hate them for. Your behavior has become the very thing you hate. Ever heard of a double standard? There is an old proverb that states, "Two wrongs do not make a right," and I believe that it applies with this situation. Obama is not fooling anybody with his, I never heard any of the outlandish things that Rev. Wright is (obviously) well known for. You can’t sit in a congregation for 20 YEARS and not have any clue what the Pastor believes. Why would you let a man like Rev. Wright have any influence in your life, unless you agreed with him on some level? I just want to say to those who are racist in the black community you cannot have it both ways, in other words you can’t lash out at the white community for being racist, and be a racist yourself. We are all created equal under God and we need to treat everyone as we WANT to be treated. Jesus was admit about the importance of forgiveness and treating others as they DO NOT DESRVE. I want to add that I am neither a black American nor a white American. I am just someone who is TIRED of the double standard in this country. REMEMBER: TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT!

Posted by: Kay | March 18, 2008 11:48 PM

Kay,

I am black and speaking about the angry injustices of 350 years is fair and just to do. Forgiveness must be given, that is very true but then for reconciliation to happen the offending party must eat some humble pie and bring restitution if possible and in this case it almost isn't. The key is to honor the invisible dead that live at the bottom of the Atlantic. There were millions that were thrown overboard over the course of the African slave trade. They are the forgotten founders of our nation. They deserve the same respect and honor as the founding fathers.

Not only them but all the black folks that have been put through hell because of their skin color deserve to have their story told.

So do the white people. Reginald Denny's story is just as important as Rodney King.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 19, 2008 1:55 AM

So you did it!! Are you proud of your selves?

I am appalled that we still live in a society in which we demand that our political leaders take some sort of litmus test and make a confession of faith in order to define themselves fit to run for office.

I am so offended that Obama had to stand there and defend himself for an alleged offence which he has no mortal control over.

You would think the ghost of J Edgard Hoover had risen from the grave to haunt us during Holy Week.

Not one of you has provided a complete sermon from Jeremiah which can be read in context. This argument is with Reverend Wright not Candidate Obama.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.

By the way we don't have bishops in the UCC. And wouldn't know what to do with one. Power trickles up not down.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 19, 2008 7:04 AM

This so-called reverand Wright comes forth a hate mongerer. No doubt he has done many good works, but he attempts to want to destroy America, the very country that probably funds most of his Church Programs and gives him tax exemption. He wants it both ways - hate those on the other side of his line in the sand, yet accept money from them.

How long will he and other blacks and whites continue to blame white America - whoever they are. Slavery ended in the 1860's at the expense of thousands of white soldiers being killed. How long will the black "leaders" keep blaming everyone else for their problems.

Many of the black people, whose ancestors were freed from slavery are still enslaved by the Democratic Party who wants to keep the blacks in poverty of money and education - so that they can better control them. How many black preachers still receive money or benefits for "guiding" their flocks to the "right" political party?

While other ethnic groups come to this country, with hardly anything and build a life for themselves, the black leaders still yell foul.

Posted by: Tony Petros | March 19, 2008 1:53 PM

Many of the black people, whose ancestors were freed from slavery are still enslaved by the Democratic Party who wants to keep the blacks in poverty of money and education - so that they can better control them. How many black preachers still receive money or benefits for "guiding" their flocks to the "right" political party?

You apparently never heard of "compassionate conservatism," which actually sought to institionalize that very thing in and for the Republican Party. The Democrats take blacks for granted because they know the conservatives who run the GOP will insult and abuse them -- Ronald Reagan is the most despised political figure in the black community, and I mean ever.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 20, 2008 11:26 PM

One of the first things I noticed when people begam to react to Rev. Wright's condemnation of America's sins as he saw them was that no one on the right or left seemed to recall how some preachers reacted to 9/11. Several, including Falwell and Robinston, declared that this was God's judgement (damnation?) of America for supporting rights for homosexuals. Some of those same preachers also suggested that Katrina was another of God's curses on this country for it's sins. What I don't recall was the outrage that is now being used to undermine Obama's campaign being directed at political leaders who attended the churches served by those preachers.

As a retired preacher, I know how hard it is to preach the truth in a challenging and caring way. Rabbi Abraham Heschel spoke of prophets as those who identify with both the pathos of the people and the pathos of God. Not an easy place to stand, but a balance that must be maintained if truth is to be served.

Posted by: Rev. Rich | March 21, 2008 9:06 PM

RACIST - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

Rev. Wright does not qualify as a racist. There is no evidence that he believes that the black race is superior to the white race.

The Black Value System urges members to follow a list of 12 concepts such as a commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family and dedication to the pursuit of education and excellence. Most white and affluent young black Americans do not understand the mindset of black people who live in a poverty-stricken community. For these forgotten Americans, they need special attention. Many are ashamed of the color of their skin. They see pimps and drug dealers as role models. It is within this community that Trinity United Church came up with the Black Value System. The desire of this program is to build pride in being black not superiority. This program wants to encourage black children to get a good education and not become teen parents, drug dealers, pimps, and prostitutes. The Black Value System is not to promote superiority of black people but to help eliminate the self hatred that many feel coming from this community. I believe Barack Obama stayed at Trinity United Church for 20 years because he has witnessed the many changed lives of black people who are now full participating members in the American economy thanks to Rev. Wright.

Posted by: Valorie Hall | March 22, 2008 10:04 PM

I had not heard the quotes by Rev. Wright in their full context. Hum .... He has been so vilified and having heard his comments primarily described as "rants" as discouraged me from seeking the source. But, I do wonder ... how will justice be served upon America for her injustices at home and around the world? Or is America immune? Many of the comments I read here are thoughtful ones, while many are reactionary. But, each one is born out of a cultural/political perspective. I have been trying to move through all the "smoke and ash" to an understanding of the facts. I ask "what is my Christian response to Rev. Wright's comments?" While I think there are (obviously) many Christian responses, I think that I, as an American, need to ... well ... repent. Is there anyone else out there who might feel the same way? "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways ... then will I hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land." Is America adverse to sin? Might this be the time for repentance? Might any time be the time for this America? Just wondering ...

Posted by: Karen | March 24, 2008 10:04 AM

I am a 40 year old caucasion male, father of three living in Massachussetts. From what I have heard of Rev Wrights comments, I can only commend them. If you are an individual who does not see that there is something terribly wrong in this country, then you are either unbelievably naive or one of those profitting from these wrongs. If I lived closer to chicago, I would visit the reverand and be very honored to shake his hand.

Posted by: Daniel Watson | April 2, 2008 11:42 PM

Lady Byrd, please look up your history and be more accurate...Black men were never injected with crippling syphilis, that is a lie.

And what do you mean by "America sure has been damned under the Bush Administration"? You sound like you have been listening to the racist and anti-American Rev. Wright for too long.

In fact, since the Bush tax relief of 2003, over 7.2 million good jobs for Americans (including blacks) (more Jobs Than The European Union And Japan Combined). Even now after the recent slowdown we experienced, unemployment is at a historically low 4.95% (including blacks), lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s during the Clinton years. Real wages Rose 1.7 percent (including blacks) which means an extra $1,030 last year for the typical family of four with two wage earners.

Americans prefer to spend their own money, not the Obama/Clinton idea that government bureaucrats know how to spend our money better than we do.

The economy GREW in the fourth quarter of 2007 and first-quarter of 2008 while the prior two quarters averaged over 4 percent growth. Real After-Tax Personal Income Per Person Has Increased Over $2,800 – Or 9.6 Percent – During the Bush Administration due to the tax relief Bush put in place for all working Americans, including blacks.

On the economy, this growth due to the Bush tax relief can continue, if McCain is allowed to let the tax relief continue for all of us working Americans. Obama and Hillary are against this, instead they want to raise our taxes which would kill the recovery. Recessions and slowdowns come and go in the free-market economy, but we can’t have Obama or Hillary making things worse with oppressive taxes on working Americans. Also Obama and Clinton continue to make the mistake that tax cuts need to be “paid for”, when the undeniable facts show that tax relief leads to economic growth and MORE tax revenue into the US Treasury coffers.

Posted by: Man Byrd | May 15, 2008 6:46 AM