Agreed.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 3:02 PM

Don,

It depends on whether you want him to be president. Wallis obviously does. Some here (myself included) do not.

That said, if Obama's campaign wanted this to be a post-racial election, he wouldn't have decided to pivot from the Wright issue to a race discussion. People aren't unnerved by Wright's comments because he's black, they are unnerved because his comments are so unhinged.

The "race discussion", which only certain people are allowed to have anyway, was just some key jingling to distract voters.

But yes, Obama should be judged on the basis of his policy positions and leadership capacity. If that is actually the case, he'll lose. If his campaign can make it about his race and his charisma (and they will try their best), he'll win.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 28, 2008 3:36 PM

Wallis=Political hack. No way around it.

Posted by: Blake | March 28, 2008 3:43 PM

The reason I get annoyed with calls for "conversations on race" is because such conversations are rarely, if ever, honest. Sorry, payshun, it's not about conservatives not listening. It's about one side expecting the other to agree with everything they say and, if not, they're called "racist."

Posted by: jesse | March 28, 2008 3:52 PM

Wallis=Political hack. No way around it.

This means...?

Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 3:55 PM

"And don't forget, McCain's detractors aren't supposed to bring up"

Who told you you weren't supposed to bring it up. I thought Christopher Hitchens had a fair commentary that addressed both proportionally.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 28, 2008 4:12 PM

Don,
The only comment by Rice I disagree with was the AIDS comment but again in context it makes sense. I still remember the Tuskegee experiments. I know most people don't but they happened.

Jesse,
I can see your point but that doesn't make what I think less honest or what you think less honest. If we could have a real conversation in grace and love and actually listen to each other then maybe something might happen. Not only that but and this is a big butt some folks may actually have some racism in them. Would not you want to know that? Not only that but by and large the conservatives on this blog have not listened to either Rick or I or other black posters. Sorry but it's true, we get labeled with victims, unforgiving... It's usually the same conversation and our conservative brothers and sisters don't listen.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM

I don't know what the political implications are going to be, none of us will truly know until the general election in my opinion.

My concern stems from the fact that this message of hate and distorted theology is being preached in many churches every week, not just from predominately black churches but also from predominately white churches. The fact that we have this separation in churches troubles me and does not represent what we are supposed to be about. Nothing disturbs me more than when any church takes a side on a political issue because no matter what people lead you believe the only time Jesus addresses the government is when he tells you to pay your taxes.

I see people like Brother Wright telling people to vote for Barack and not Hillary and I also see conservative pastors endorsing candidates. This effectively waters down the gospel we are called to preach. I do not go to church to hear about how Hillary is not qualified to be president or why I should vote for a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. I go to church to worship the one true God with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and to see people come the know Christ. If we are preaching politics from the pulpit then we are limiting and diluting God's message.

Not to mention the fact that churches have tax-exempt status which means they are not supposed to be involved with political issues.

Let's preach the Word and not politics. Political views do not change people's lives, only God can do that.

Posted by: Russell | March 28, 2008 4:40 PM

Russell - I'm largely in agreement with you. It's one thing if a pastor says we need to work to end particular injustices, but quite another when they start telling us to vote for a particular candidate or ballot initiative or something.

Posted by: Eric | March 28, 2008 4:47 PM

I think both Jim Wallis and Rev. J Wright should lead the discussion on race relations in this country. Out in the open their true Character will be seen. Hiding behind a computer or a pulpit would expose them as they are. Remember, don't be afraid. Christ wasn't. He gave His all to accomplish the will of His Father.

Posted by: Lars | March 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Jim,

I just want you to know I'll be praying for you.

I'll be praying that when this Barack Obama thing goes smash, as I'm pretty sure it will, that you will have your eyes opened and see that there was never anything there but a thin sheen of identity politics and a lot of hot air.

I hope that with your eyes opened you will take a long hard look at smears as come out of the Black in incoherent rage that has come out of the Black Liberation Theology movement, and ask whether such billiousness is really a fitting successor for the great Civil Rights Movement.

And I hope you will consider that perhaps it was a mark of God's providence and care for both America and the Church that the vanity of Obama and the viciousness of Wright collided in such a way as to bring both down low.

As much as I disagree with you on a range of issues, I do think there's a place for a humane, thoughtful Christian left. I think it will survive the fall of Obama and Wright. In fact, I think its prospects, over the long term, are better without them (certainly better without Wright anyway) than with them.

I know you're not ready to hear this but maybe, sometime between now and the end of November, you will be. And when you are, I'll be happy to explain what I see, and even though you won't agree with me on a lot of issues, I think a lot of things will make more sense to you then.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 28, 2008 5:35 PM

Wolverine, don't write Obama's political obituary yet. You may have to eat those words!

Posted by: Don | March 28, 2008 5:41 PM

Wolverine is funny, I mean really funny too. Thanks for the laugh. I have followed black liberation theology for years and I can tell you that it is not incoherent rage. It's righteous anger. You would know that if you did not think your ideas about it were so righteous. But arrogance and a lack of understanding seem to cloud your judgement when it comes to the theology. You have already cut me out of the conversation when I could have explained it better.

That's cowardly. I really doubt you know much of anything about the civil rights movement. maybe if you learned more about it you would know that rage is a common expression of injustice. Better it be in words than the destruction of property or people.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 5:46 PM

Hey everyone,
I am new to this blog so be gentle please. I am a white male who grew up a couple miles out of SE D.C. I have experienced racism and have members of my family who are racist to the core. I moved to Dallas when I was a teenager only to be told that I was not white enough.

This conversation on race needs to happen. But can we all please remember that no matter who wins the Presidency they are not the answer but may only lead to easing the burden. Racism (tribalism) is prevalent in Nigeria and Indonesia, Israel and England. None of us know the answer but we can be part of the solution. Forgive and expect to hurt. Our responsibility is to think of the whole and it will cost us.

Daniel

Posted by: Daniel | March 28, 2008 6:21 PM

That second graf should read:

I hope that with your eyes opened you will take a long hard look at smears and incoherent rage that has come out of the Black Liberation Theology movement, and ask whether such billiousness is really a fitting successor for the great Civil Rights Movement.

I really need to get a new editor.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 28, 2008 6:33 PM

If people took time to look beyond a few select clips played over an over, they could see what did keep Obama at his church. Here’s a link to a video of the “Audacity of Hope” sermon (based on the famous “Hope Painting”) which inspired Obama:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65nTKHq0v4

Posted by: Ron M. | March 28, 2008 7:15 PM

Wallis nails this. Obama's speech is being parsed and diced to illustrate that he supposedly threw his grandmother under the bus, and called us "typical white people" and so forth. But my own experiences validate this. Too many times I've heard whites use phrases that promote a soft form of racism without even knowing it. One of my black friends gets stopped for DWB all the time. That's driving-while-black. This is a serious problem. It's not slavery or torture of seperate bathrooms anymore. But the reality is that we do discriminate and mistreat each other over no more than race. The country wants to hope for better. We want to dream of an America where race is a unifying point and not a divider. We are not there yet. Obama's speech brought us closer though.

Posted by: David J | March 28, 2008 7:49 PM

Wolverine,

I can tell you that rage is not limited to Black Liberation theology. It's worse in nationalistic communities and other more extreme separatist ideals. They are there too. But please if you are going to talk about Reverend Wright at least acknowledge one simple thing. White people go to his church. If it were separatist they would not make it thru the door.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 7:51 PM

If someone is bitter about being wronged by another, Jesus said to forgive them - Matt. 5: 43-48 and Matt. 6:12. A Red Letter Christian would urge people to stop being bitter about past wrongs, rather than rationalize their bad feelings.

That's not the point. People do not want to accept that the wrong done in the past has consequences today; you cannot have reconciliation unless they're acknowledged. And many whites just don't want to do so -- because it will cost them.

But yes, Obama should be judged on the basis of his policy positions and leadership capacity. If that is actually the case, he'll lose.

You wish.

He knows that these incendiary remarks help grow congregations, grow bankrolls, and garner power for his political ends.

Wright has political ends? Excuse me, but statements like that are not made for those reasons!

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 8:15 PM

Jack,

I couldn't agree with you more.

I like to call myself a recovering evangelical. I am a Christ follower and have been privileged to be involved with Christian Community Development. Here is a place where the issue of race and racism is openly discussed with love and understanding. As a white person I have sought to listen to stories, to read as much as I can, to love my black brothers and sisters, but I will never, ever understand what it is like to be black in the country now and most definitely cannot never really know how awful it was for their mothers and fathers, grandmother, grandfathers. To hear what Rev Wright said in a less than 30 blip is grossly unjust.

I go to a church that is very biblical. It is in the city and ministers to the community. There are some sermons if taken out of context could be totally taken wrong.

Man, we just need to listen and love and care and serve.

Posted by: Pat | March 28, 2008 9:06 PM

'...were bound to eventually rear their ugly heads.'

So you caused the ugly head to rise? I heard Obama's speech - not too impressed. If this were a white pastor and a white canidate - my head spins thinking about what the BIG FOUR news networks would be saying much less Sojo and Co.

Just for the record -

If this were my pastor and he stated something this outrageous and might I say stupid. For the sake of argument - I was not there when he said it. (In my church like others, something said from the pulpit that was profound - outrageous - funny - etc. would be talked about for weeks to come.) I would personally make an appointment with the pastor and ask for validation and clarifacation. If the pastor said what I was told was said - I would have an open and honest conversation with them about the topic or issue. If it was wrong and had no support in the Bible must less facts. I would explane that a retraction had to be made. If the pastor was still at odds with me I would ask that we have time together with the board of the church to discuss this matter. If the pastor was asked by the board to retract and refused - I could no longer attend that church with them in the pulpit. (I might even write a lette to the denomination to inform them about the situation)

That Wright can accuse me as a white man of allowing the AIDS virus to be developed just to infect the back race is utter nonsence - pure and simple.

To me it is not about 'race' it is about the truth. But it is easy to label it as race so that you can blame the others.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 9:45 PM

"That Wright can accuse me as a white man of allowing the AIDS virus to be developed just to infect the back race is utter nonsence - pure and simple."

You should quote him without distortion and fully rather than summarizing the statement just the way you want to dismiss him. There's a lot of things in this world you haven't personally done, but all of us who find out what evil has been done, in whatever way we can we are responsible to God to correct, as opportunity is placed before us. Black people ought to forgive, but that is between them and God. It's not something we can demand from them as yet another one of our white privileges. As David observed, we have sinned against God Himself. Can we so blithely order Him to forgive us, hard-hearted and stiff-necked as we are in our arrogance and arrogation of everything to ourselves as our deserved divine blessing?

I recall not so long ago that my fellow evangelical Christians were seeing AIDS as a just punishment direct from God for those who contracted it. If I recall, when leaders first voiced this, I didn't necessarily disagree.

Now if it affected the black community more than demographically justified, that must be a just punishment particularly aimed at blacks, who had a propensity to be peculiarly wicked.

Let's be honest about the demons that have lurked just below our consciousness.

We do know that at best white America has been indifferent.

No, not everyone, but in order of national priorities measured in terms of money and effort, Wall Street, empire-building and militarism come first.

Among evangelicals, things are changing. Let's credit leaders like Rick and Kay Warren, who's written a book about the life-changing attitude adjustment she and Rick underwent in their understanding of the AIDS epidemic, and its preponderance of suffering occurring among the non-white.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 10:03 PM

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 10:03 PM

I recall not so long ago that my fellow evangelical Christians were seeing AIDS as a just punishment direct from God for those who contracted it. If I recall, when leaders first voiced this, I didn't necessarily disagree.

I did! That Fawell and others could speak for the Almighty on such a things as AIDS was wrong - pure and simple. I even wrote Fawell and told him so - he did not reply and that was OK.

Now if it affected the black community more than demographically justified, that must be a just punishment particularly aimed at blacks, who had a propensity to be peculiarly wicked.

BULL! It affected those who life style was to be careless in the sexual and other behaviors. It did not go after a 'race' it was 'conduct'.

'...America has been indifferent.'

Any number of people or people groups that been indiferent.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 28, 2008 11:41 PM

If this were a white pastor and a white canidate - my head spins thinking about what the BIG FOUR news networks would be saying much less Sojo and Co.

The same thing, but with a twist. Remember the real issue: Blacks are tired of being defined by artificial standards that have nothing to do with character and being taking out of context. (Besides that, as people have mentioned on other threads, this happens all the time.)

I'll be praying that when this Barack Obama thing goes smash, as I'm pretty sure it will, that you will have your eyes opened and see that there was never anything there but a thin sheen of identity politics and a lot of hot air.

Your prayers, with all due respect, are wasted. As we've been saying all along, this kind of thing has been going on in the black church for decades and it won't go away overnight (or, for that matter, anytime soon if at all). It comes as a surprise only to those never aware of it in the first place.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 11:52 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 28, 2008 11:52 PM

'...has been going on in the black church for decades and it won't go away overnight...'

You can't be justifing this because it have been 'going on' for so long? If you are then you have to give Fawell a bye on several issues because it was 'going on' for so long. (I never did - I respectfully took issue with several things he said in years past and even he changed his tune on a few issues)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 12:04 AM

You can't be justifing this because it have been 'going on' for so long? If you are then you have to give Fawell a bye on several issues because it was 'going on' for so long.

Not at all true in Falwell's case, as he hooked up the "culture warriors" only in the late 1970s. The problem there was not his political/ideological stances but that he basically sold out the Gospel for the sake of power and authority, which you can never accuse Wright of doing (because, truth be told, he will not get much of a crowd preaching what he does no matter what people might believe). I just read Jim Bakker's book "I Was Wrong" and learned the depth of duplicity that Falwell was involved with in dealing with PTL.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:14 AM

I hope that with your eyes opened you will take a long hard look at smears as come out of the Black in incoherent rage that has come out of the Black Liberation Theology movement, and ask whether such billiousness is really a fitting successor for the great Civil Rights Movement.

Forgot to mention -- many white conservatives to this day deeply resent the civil-rights movement. One of the biggest occupied the White House from 1981-89. So that argument gets no traction.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 12:57 AM

...when this Barack Obama thing goes smash, as I'm pretty sure it will...And I hope you will consider that perhaps it was a mark of God's providence and care for both America and the Church that the vanity of Obama and the viciousness of Wright collided in such a way as to bring both down low...I do think there's a place for a humane, thoughtful Christian left. I think it will survive the fall of Obama and Wright. In fact, I think its prospects, over the long term, are better without them (certainly better without Wright anyway) than with them.

Wolverine, your scenario isn't very likely, in my view. Obama and his supporters, I'm quite sure, are very happy that the Jeremiah Wright thing surfaced so early in the campaign. Let's not forget, Obama hasn't actually won the Democratic nomination yet. And a lot of other things have to happen before November that will bear upon the presidential race, not least of which includes the selection of running mates.

Further, should Obama enter the Democratic convention ahead in the primary-earned delegate count but without enough delegates to win the nomination outright--which is likely--I wouldn't put it past Hillary or her campaign (e.g., Bill?) to engineer some dirty tricks at the convention and steal the nomination away from Obama. If that happens, Hillary will split the Democratic party and McCain will win the election. But in this scenario the blame will be Hillary's, not Jeremiah Wright's, and Obama will be back--big time--in 2012.

But let's assume that Obama does win the nomination. By the time the Democratic and Republican conventions are over, the nation will be so mired in an economic downturn, and the media and politicians will no longer be able to ignore the continued deterioration of the situation in Iraq, that a few comments uttered by a preacher on the south side of Chicago that were lifted out of their contexts and posted on the Web will be forgotten by most Americans.

In other words, if you think that Jeremiah Wright will become Barack Obama's incarnation of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it just ain't gonna happen. Economic, political and military situations that are far more serious are poised to overwhelm and overtake this little matter in most Americans' minds.

One further thought. James Martin is absolutely correct regarding the tone of your "I'll be praying for you" piece. It reeks of condescension.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 29, 2008 7:28 AM

I prefer to comment again generally rather than direct my comments at a particular post. I do this because, although a thought may be expressed by a single person it generally is safe to conclude there are many others who would express the same thought. Therefore, my struggle is not with the individual but with the subject matter expressed and the mind-set which enables such a thought to be considered valid.
Regarding comments about the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the black community some have commented the disease is linked to behavior and through that somehow therefore it becomes the person't fault. First, it is wrong because many contracted the virus innocently and it has been passed on innocently. Second, it is unfairly judgmental. My judgment of the behavior of others who live in an environment I have NEVER known is on its face unfair. It is like my being critical of the Israelites turning away from God when they faced hardships following the deliverence from Egypt. How many times have I turned away from the call of my God over lesser struggles so who am I to judge them. Rather, I se myself in them and try to do better.
When I heard the clips from Rev. Wright's sermons I was bothered; however, I wanted to know the context and I knew that could not be found just in the text of one sermon. I hit the books and reviewed the civii rights movement from 1959 to 1969 (As far as I have gotten to date, although I have skimmed the early 70's which revealed further startling facts.) What I learned was very LITTLE progress had been made by 1969. Laws had been passed and asttempts to integrate had been made, but largely there was no real progress and in the early 70's the Federal government was rolling back efforts to inforce the laws that had been passed and most local governments had resisted inforcing them at all. This is just barely 30 years ago and we wonder why there might still be pain and even hatred caused by the injustices. I give here an excerpt of what I learned:
My survey of 1959-1970 revealed:
1964 Virginia schools, Prince Edward County, closed since 1959 Court rulings required integration of schools, are ordered to reopen. Public schools had closed and local governments gave scholarships to white students for private schools. For 5-6 years few blacks received an education. When public schools reopened 1,400 black, but only 7 white, students attended the public schools.
Republican nominee for President, Barry Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act. Activists promoting black voter registration were killed. 30 black churches were burned. 90% of students still attended segregated schools.
1965: Gov. Wallace orders troops to end a march for black voting rights using whips, nightsticks, and tear gas.
1966: White mob attacks black school children who integrated an all white school using chains, pipes, and axe handles, local police stood and watched. The peacful movement developed more violence through the Black Panthers. Although black leaders were called to, and many did denounce the movement, peace loving Martin Luther King refused. (My personal thought: he deplored violence but understood the anger and frustration and it needed to be acknowledged and not simply denounced. He could speak against their actions without denouncing them and dismissing their anger.)
These were 30-40 years ago, inequality and anger still exist. We must admit and improve!

National commissions 1969-70 found the most serious threat to U.S. security was internal, two societies, seperate and unequal. Freedom-equality-opportunity were not realities for all. Proposed shift of priorities. Recommended spending 20 billion on general welfare AS SOON AS VIETNAM WAR ENDS.

Unfortunately this study was not heeded and tow societies still exist today. The question for us is, Are we ready to change and do things right? We cannot do it by saying Rev. Wright is a nut job. We can question the value of the way he said things and whether he overstated or even was slanderous but if we stop there we lose the opportunity to bring real change as those did who ignored the 69-70 Commission findings.

I pray for MYSELF that I for one do not let that happen. I pray for ALL of us God opens our eyes to HIS truth and HIS path, not anything I want, but only what HE wants! May His Spirit pour over us and create in us HIS love for ALL and may our actions reflect THAT LOVE! Jack

Posted by: Jack | March 29, 2008 9:35 AM

James Martin wrote:

What is pathetic is not the support or lack of support for Obama as you would purposely choose to mis-characterize it. Rather it is the utterly arrogant "I'll pray for you" bit and the "I'll be praying that when this Barack Obama thing goes smash..." part. I guess that those types of comments aren't mean and arrogant in your thick book of double standards.

I'll be praying for you, Kevin and Wolverine, in the same spirit that Wolverine will be praying for Jim.

James,

If Barack Obama succeeds, then I would welcome your prayers. I would welcome your prayers because I would have badly underestimated Obama's appeal. Even if that does not mean I need to go convert to liberalism (note that I did not presume that Wallis would automatically abandon the left when Barack's campaign fails) that would suggest there is something I failed to account for in predicting that Obama's support would fail.

We should all be open to learning from our mistakes -- when we make them.

Don,

If Hillary Clinton's defeats Obama through strongarm tactics, I would not assume that the Wright controversy had nothing to do with it. The ties to Wright may create openings, or reduce Obama's overall support, making it easier for Clinton's "war room" to finish him off with a well-timed ad or the right inducements to a decisive block of uncommitted superdelegates.

Competition is a fact of life in politics. Obama has rivals, which is one of the resons he should have cut loose from Wright and Trinity last week, when he still had a chance to make a clean break.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 29, 2008 11:35 AM

"Obama and his supporters, I'm quite sure, are very happy that the Jeremiah Wright thing surfaced so early in the campaign."

This is true. His campaign knew they were going to have to deal with this at some point, and had a good diversion planned, and timed this pretty well. They also did a good job with the tax issue, leveraging the fact that they released his tax returns first to distract from his less-than-generous charitable giving record.

This campaign is very smart. I think they'll take a page out of the Clinton-Dole playboook by making an aggressive run to the middle. I could see Obama holding a 30-minute, prime-time, fireside chat, laying out a very moderate platform (that will have nothing to do with what is presently on his campaign site).

On Social issues, he'll give that "I'm thinking pragmatically right now" look that he is known for, while essentially espousing the liberal platform.

His supporters will herald the speech as reminiscent of Roosevelt, proof that Obama is a uniter. Wallis will compare it to the sermon on the mount.

The Obama campaign will hand off an exclusive October surprise to CBS, related to McCain's Vietnam service, which will either be a prostitute story or a he-wasn't-a-very-good-soldier story. Obama supporters will cite this as proof that McCain is a phony. Sojourners will decry his lack of ethics in 456 consecutive entries that say exactly the same thing.

One week later, an Obama prostitute and/or got-caught-cheating-in-college story will be dismissed as dirty tricks. Obama gets elected, only unlike Clinton, he won't have an economic wave to ride. His economic policies will sputter until the 2010 elections, when the voters will deprive him of an obliging congress. He'll give his "I'm thinking pragmatically right now" look a lot as his approval ratings (which weren't that high to begin with) tank.

Wallis will decide his work is done, and retire. Huckabee will study up on foreign policy, and take the election in 2012 in the closest thing we can have to a landslide. Time Magazine will craft a vacuous think-piece that starts:

"It all began with an angry pastor."

Posted by: kevin s. | March 29, 2008 11:53 AM

aaron
I always get the feeling that you're so busy arguing against things that you miss the whole point.
Or are you actually saying that white evangelicals churches spend time on the subject of racial reconciliation with regularity?
If we are supposed to be one body, then each side must do the work of trying to do become reconciled. I am white, therefor I should pay attention to what my part is in achieving that goal and leave the African American part to them and the Holy Spirit. For any white man to insist on African American obedience to the gospel when the white church is ignoring their part, is hypocritical. To criticize Wright and to not criticise the much more powerful white pastorate for it silence and segregated practice, is hypocritical.
The fact that the white church never participated in the civil rights movement and continues to support the anti civil rights movement through its segregated practice, its silence, and far too often, its outright support of evil, like Bob Jones Univ, is far worse than anything Wright has ever said. In fact these are only very minor examples of the racial wrongs done by the white church, but we seldom even think of them or get offended by them at all. In fact, these facts are in large part the reason Wright said what he did.
The stance against Wright is inexcusable in its bias and lack of understanding and recognition of the facts.
To make it a stand against Obama is ridiculous.

Posted by: wayne | March 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Wolverine,

What is mature about it?

You keep making accusations about Obama, Black Liberation theology and a host of things that only come from your 10 minute examination of it. Besides your dismissal of a healing theology what exactly are you trying to say? Why do you get to dictate what people from my side think?

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Payshun,

I can no more dictate what your side says than you can dictate what my side says.

What I can do is point out the arguments that actually have some possibility of being persuasive.

Whatever else might be said about Rev. Wright, Barack Obama, Black Liberation Theology, or race in general, these are hard issues and there is plenty out there for people of good will to disagree over.

It might cramp the whole "prophetic" routine to do so, but if you're willing to concede that the other guys might not all be the spawn of satan, there's a much better chance you'll be heard.

Leonard Pitts seems to have gotten that much, which is why he manages to make sense to me.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 29, 2008 12:59 PM

Wolverine,

Ummm I already did that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 29, 2008 1:06 PM

Payshun,

Yes, but those are righteous expressions of righteous words. Wright is a man who has gotten wealthy spreading lies (Tuskegee or no Tuskegee, the AIDS line was a lie). That he is angry does not impress me.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 29, 2008 1:24 PM

"Now we need to break it down to US born and those that have immigrated to this country.

"I think that you will find that the HIV/AIDS virus will be higher with the immigrants."

When racism against Americans is unsustainable, let's move it to the poor immigrant?

Have you no shame? At long last, sir, have you no shame?

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 2:14 PM

Here's the second one.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,705161.story

D

Posted by: Don | March 29, 2008 2:20 PM

The fact that the white church never participated in the civil rights movement and continues to support the anti civil rights movement through its segregated practice, its silence, and far too often, its outright support of evil, like Bob Jones Univ, is far worse than anything Wright has ever said.

I completely agree, Wayne. Although there was one sterling exception to the silence and complicity of white evangelical leaders - Billy Graham, who marched with Dr. King, refused to preach before segregated audiences, and spoke out against racism in his 1953 book Peace with God.

Posted by: Rachel | March 29, 2008 2:29 PM

Further, I don't see any scripture that supports the idea that we must reconcile ourselves to Christians simply because they are angry.

From Matthew 5:

23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

Straight from the "Sermon on the Mount."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 29, 2008 3:02 PM

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 7:55 AM

Maybe we should round up all these infected people and send them back to Africa. Or we could build a fence.

Oh please - why are you bring up the race card with HIV/AIDS, it is spread though behavior. You brought the black issue up and I just thought that if we are going to single out a certain race then we better understand how it breaks down. When my people came to America - several were turnback for conditions that were curable or temp. illness. Now we bring them in regardless of what they may have and through their behavior allow them to spread it to anyone else.

It is behavioral not racial.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 29, 2008 4:07 PM

It doesn't make suffering through an Obama term (with its accompanying supreme court appointments) any easier, though.

Ha! Let's all have a laugh at this one! After seven years of Bush, there are those who actually think someone could do worse? Not in my lifetime, I'm sure. And I certainly doubt whether it could be Barack Obama.

And I voted for him back in 2000, too (though I didn't repeat mistake in '04).

D

Posted by: Don | March 29, 2008 5:04 PM

Imagine the bs we could come up with if we sound-byted the OT prophets together for a 15 second clip on Fox's Nightly News.

Or, if we read only 1 chapter out of Jeremiah's 66.

Posted by: canucklehead | March 29, 2008 9:09 PM

"When I read many of the conservative viewpoints on this and other blogs, I reminded of how arrogant and Rush-like they are." Ando

Yep, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Good comment, Ando. Thanks.

"(Rick, on the other hand, is far too insulting for me to converse with)." Posted by: jesse

Rick, you lucky dog!

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 29, 2008 9:40 PM

"Drive Bys did take conservative canidates to task when they got too close to Fawell back in the day."

Shorthand comments like this reveal their El Rushbo origins...

Dittoheads call the "mainstream liberal media" the "drive-by media" ...

Even Cal Thomas says there is too much of true believers taking polarising talking points from ideologues who are really just entertainers, as the harmless little fuzzball has said he is on many occasions.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 29, 2008 9:57 PM

"Kevin- Which "Word of God" are you referring to? We do have a responsibility to reconcile ourselves to truth.
BTW- I'm still waiting for documented proof that the HIV/AIDS statement is a lie."

That's the beauty of crackpot conspiracy theories. It is impossible to disprove them with documentation. Can you provide documentation disproving the existence of kite-eating trees? If you aren't buying the CDCs side of the story, I don't know what to tell you.

"But liars do not inherit the kingdom of God and I think we need to tread carefully when accusing anyone of such insidious behavior."

I am treading carefully. He is a liar.

"Here's another speculation on the origin of the HIV/AIDS virus. Is this also a "lie"?"

Doesn't seem to be, no.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

Straight from the "Sermon on the Mount.""

I contemplated my statement in light of this verse. It does not indicate that I must reconcile myself to someone simply because they are angry. Further, Wright does not know who I am, which makes it hard for him to be angry with me.

"When I read many of the conservative viewpoints on this and other blogs, I reminded of how arrogant and Rush-like they are."

Thank you for tempering the arrogance. Your blanket accusation made everything so humble. May I analyze this sentiment on my blog?

"No one seems to have the answer, other than to blast away at people who aren't like you."

Pretty please?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 29, 2008 11:57 PM

Do you believe that the reason that their is a disproportionate number of blacks incarcerated is due to their anti-social behaviors also?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples |

Do you believe the disproportionate number of blacks killing blacks is the fault of Asians , Whites , Native Americans , Latinos , OR members who sat in the pews of your church and figured somone else needed to repent for their sins .

Posted by: commonsense | March 30, 2008 4:46 AM

Wright bases his religious and social outreach on Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is racist through and through. Obama based his book on "the audacity of hope" which was inspired by his mentor Wright. 1 + 1 + 1= 3. 3 represents racism.

Posted by: Another day | March 30, 2008 7:54 AM

It does not indicate that I must reconcile myself to someone simply because they are angry. Further, Wright does not know who I am, which makes it hard for him to be angry with me.

What you miss, Kevin, and that the passage I mentioned brings out, is that they have cause to be angry, and to this point you have simply dismissed it. I'm not going to go through all the reasons -- that's been done already.

I personally look at the issue of race as individual sin. That is, one black man (or woman) finds a reason, within themselves, to 'hate' someone of another race. We do it, as we "do" all sin, one at a time. And so. . . if we fix the problem, (and we can) it will be done. . . . one at a time. There is no other way.

That doesn't fly in the least when you consider the conservative response to legal abortion, gay marriage and the like. "One person at a time" was not considered a viable strategy in those cases; in fact, "religious right" figures made a ton on money raising cultural challenges.

Besides, racism also was at one time the law in certain states, and the culture in which those laws existed has hung around even after all these years. The Ku Klux Klan and White Citizens Councils still exist, though they obviously don't have the power they once did.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 30, 2008 8:51 AM

Jesse Said:
Payshun,
I think you mistake listening for agreeing. I do try to read your posts and believe you're one of the more thoughtful posters here (Rick, on the other hand, is far too insulting for me to converse with). If you really think I'm not listening, what would it look like for right-leaning people like myself to listen? In what ways have you exhibited this style of listening, yourself? Keep in mind my assumption that listening and agreeing are different things.

Me:
Jesse, I don't expect you to agree with me. But I want see (in written words) that you understand or can empathize. You don't have to agree with the outcome of my thoughts, but I don't believe most of you understand. Wayne is a republican...They don't agree with everything but I do get the sense that they do share in the collective horror of our founding. I just don't get a sense that they try to distance themselves from my experience as a black guy. The other more conservative posters on this blog have rarely united my history with theirs. So that's where the disconnect lies with me.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 30, 2008 12:21 PM

Kevin
"America can't even rid itself of a mediocrity like Jimmy Carter to this day. "

Would that more Americans were like Jimmy Carter. We would have more people working for peace and feeding and clothing the hungry. Mediocrity. What a sad, sad statement about a man who has done more to promote peace and work for the poor than any other president in recent history. How many homes have you built for Habitat?

Posted by: squeaky | March 30, 2008 12:55 PM

joekc--

"I personally look at the issue of race as individual sin....The answer is repentance, and its subsequent change of life, one person at a time. "

Whereas I agree with much of what you say, one thing I'd like to point out is that slavery was and racism is not just individual sins. They were sins of society and sins of a nation. We have individualized sin to the point that we only see individuals as capable of sinning, and yet whole communities, and even whole nations are capable of collective sin. Certainly, the sins of racism and slavery fall under that category.

I think it was Rick who pointed out that the Religious Right certainly recognizes this. I myself have been part of prayer teams that inteceded for national sins. Those sins always were sexual moral sins, but it was still a repentence for national sinfulness.

In the OT, we see time and time again where God does not focus on an individual's sin, but on Israel's sin as a nation. In the times when Israel realized they were on the wrong track, they repented as a nation, not only as individuals.

The idea of individual sinfulness is a wholly Western viewpoint. Yes, change must start with individuals. But change can only truly occur with individuals acting within and as community.

One need only look at nations who have taken the idea of national repentence seriously to see that it can indeed have huge impacts--I give Germany and South Africa as examples.

Posted by: squeaky | March 30, 2008 1:32 PM

But apparently you do get the left.

A false dichotomy. Remember, not everyone who isn't "right" isn't automatically "left."

I think what we're saying is that much of what Rev. Wright has been teaching his church has been counterproductive.

You might want to visit Wright's church or a similar one before you make that statement. Every church's ministry is different, and to say that Wright's ministry is "counterproductive" without knowing the context in which he speaks is, at best, presumptuous. That's why understanding the history of the black church is so crucial to understanding how to deal with the issue of race.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 30, 2008 1:36 PM

"We have individualized sin to the point that we only see individuals as capable of sinning, and yet whole communities, and even whole nations are capable of collective sin."

Do you find scriptural support for the idea of collective sin in the New Testament? A nation cannot collectively repent before Christ, and so how can they collectively sin, unless each and every person is committing the same sin?

Further, you seem to be indicating post-generational accountability for sins. Christ dismisses entirely the notion that a child will be held accountable for the sins of his or her parents. How, then, can we leap to the conclusion that we are collectively responsible for what a majority of older generations did?

That the religious right has engaged in similar is not relevant to the discussion. I came here looking for an alternative to the demagogic stylings of the RR, didn't you?

"I give Germany and South Africa as examples."

Do you have information indicating that bigotry is less prominent in those nations than it is here?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 30, 2008 1:57 PM

"Consider I Corinthians 10."

Which references the OT as a warning to us not to sin. But again, I do not see an NT example of a Christian being held to account for the collective sin of pagans, irrespective of nationality.

"If those persons benefit somehow from the past. Say a company was built with slave labor but still exists and making a ton of profit."

Do you have a scriptural reference to back this up? By this standard, slaves themselves could be held to account for this sin of slavery. Remember, we're talking about damning a nation here.

"Certainly in South Africa it is. "

Okay, that is just reasserting Squeaky's point. I was hoping for information.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 30, 2008 3:34 PM

I support none of the existing candidates.

I helped plant a multi-cultural church. I submit to the authority of our leadership, black and white.

If a friend attended a church that spoke as The Rev. Wright spoke and they wanted me to support them for a position of leadership, I'd ask them direct questions.

If they gave me "nuanced" answers I'd reject them. Obama is to his supporters the king wearing no clothes. They refuse to accept his foolishness as Hillary and McClain supporters overlook theirs.

If he really cared his checkbook would show it. We expect our politicians to be honest. Will we be honest ourselves about the people we support? So far I don't see it. We "nuance" our own responses based upon our own personal objectives. If I vote it will be for the least of the worst. Right now it is a dead heat.

Posted by: Joseph | March 30, 2008 3:55 PM

My hope is that Obama's deep understanding of the racial tensions in America, he may be the best person to mediate between the Shiite and Sunni in Iraq.

Posted by: Marilyn | March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

aaron
I always get the feeling that you're so busy arguing against things that you miss the whole point.

So I counter one anecdote with another anecdote and you assume more in the works? I may miss the point, but I'm sure you don't have it either.

Posted by: aaron | March 30, 2008 4:51 PM

Well, what was actually done in response? It's easy to speak about such things being evil; however, actually confronting one's own attitude and culpability is a totally different matter.

About as much as anyone who earnestly believes and applies the principles of christian life in the face of any sin.

Heck, I even heard Jimmy Swaggart condemn racism back in the day, so what does that mean?

Dunno, never listened to Swaggart, nor was a he a mentor of mine for nigh on 20 years.

Posted by: aaron | March 30, 2008 5:01 PM

Jesse,

I blogged about this here:

http://theproblemwithkevin.blogspot.com/2008/03/hopeface-mcscrooge.html

Wallis has, in the past, counted charity work as "canned compassion" compared to the real work of changing the political landscape. He's not opposed to charity, but he isn't going to call anyone out for not giving. Dicey territory, scripturally, but necessary if you are going to suggest that Democrats are not only right, but also "get it".

Posted by: kevin s. | March 30, 2008 5:34 PM

'I'm wondering who jesse and kevin are supporting for the Presidency." justintime

Well, Kevin has been pretty laudatory of McCain. I don't know if that translates to support. If it does, I think that it is great that Kevin S. is being forced to support one of the few Republican proponents of legalization of undocumented immigrants. He probably figures that that would be the lesser of two evils- at least some of the legalized can be inducted into Empire America's forces when McCain launches WWIII against Iran.

I have to agree with Kevin on one point, though. He aptly named his blog.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 30, 2008 6:47 PM

I was hoping for information.

Upon being inaugurated in 1994 as president, Mandela recited a litany of past evils done to blacks over the history of South Africa but eventually turned to his predecessor, F. W. de Klerk, and said, "I need you."

It is definitely a character issue, and if Sojo believes our politicians should have a certain level of integrity, they would be jumping on this story.

Why? That sounds like a political/ideological attack, not a real "story." So he doesn't give that much to charity? What does that have to do with anything?

Wallis has, in the past, counted charity work as "canned compassion" compared to the real work of changing the political landscape.

And he's right about that. You see, "canned compassion" does nothing to change the state of the poor the way politcal action can and often does; even after money for bills and groceries is distributed they're still poor and without hope. This is why there was much a focus as there was during the civil-rights movement on the right to vote. Remember that Obama was a community activist before his active political career began.

We tend to forget that pastors such as MLK Jr. -- and Wright -- were actually out in the community doing the things pastors were supposed to do, and they more than anyone else understand what needed to be changed. They would have known that the issues were primarily systemic, that the people they served did not have the same access to resources that the greater community did. Conservatives never talk about that one because they know full well their side holds most of the chips.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 30, 2008 7:12 PM

We tend to forget that pastors such as MLK Jr. -- and Wright -- were actually out in the community doing the things pastors were supposed to do,

Rick, you need to add Rev. Jim Wallis to that list. I, like Jonabark above, continue to wonder why the nitpickers continue hanging around here. I'm becoming more and more convinced that you (Rick) are right--the neocons can't stand letting others monitor the debate.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 30, 2008 7:49 PM

It's profoundly hypocritical to speak loud and proud about policies that take money from other people to give to the poor when you're not willing to give to them yourself.

As I have said time and time again, the issue isn't money -- it's access, which can and will never show up on a tax return. Charity will take you only so far when your rights as a citizen and ability to fulfill your responsibilities are compromised.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 30, 2008 8:55 PM

"You know, the funny thing is, there are people who give generously without putting it on their tax return, where you can get credit for it even when the true charity's marginal."

So Obama deducted some, but not all, of his charity? And then proceeded to publish his tax returns? This strains credibility.

"So he doesn't give that much to charity? What does that have to do with anything?"

He has talked about how important the Christian faith is to him. The Bible commands us to give. He has not. He is rendered a hypocrite.

Further, he claims to be interested in restoring justice, and would like to make economic decisions that force us to support his vision. I have no interest in obeying someone who is asking me to do more than what I am already doing, when he himself is doing less than I am doing.

"As I have said time and time again, the issue isn't money -- it's access,"

Apples and oranges. The Bible calls us to give of our wealth, not our access.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 30, 2008 9:25 PM

"You know, the funny thing is, there are people who give generously without putting it on their tax return, where you can get credit for it even when the true charity's marginal."
--His campaign could have made this defense. Their defense was that they were struggling with paying off student loans. Poor things. They were in the top 2% of income earners during that time. See here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story

Posted by: jesse | March 30, 2008 9:43 PM

Rick,

I ask you for specifics, you give me a proverb.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 30, 2008 9:47 PM

Wolverine thinks we're all here just to answer his questions.
How about Wolverine answering some of our questions about his favorite candidate, whoever that is.

Posted by: justintime | March 30, 2008 9:59 PM

"I personally look at the issue of race as individual sin. That is, one black man (or woman) finds a reason, within themselves, to 'hate' someone of another race. We do it, as we "do" all sin, one at a time. And so. . . if we fix the problem, (and we can) it will be done. . . . one at a time. There is no other way. Society cannot fix anything."

"Do you find scriptural support for the idea of collective sin in the New Testament?"

What these statements from two different people are trying to say is that slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans and their lands were all done on an individual basis, and that these sins were not collective, but done individually. That would mean, then, that a country will not be judged by its collective ethos, whether it be abortion or its treatment of the poor. I'm wondering if we're confusing Christianity with Americanism: the sense that we are bigger and better than any other place in the world. I would say we're coming dangerously close to this ethos.

Posted by: ando | March 30, 2008 10:09 PM

No matter what you say, Wolverine will never let go his bite on your pant leg.
And he will never admit it when his position is untenable.

Posted by: justintime | March 30, 2008 10:48 PM

touche!

Posted by: justintime | March 30, 2008 11:11 PM

What do I have?

Well, probably the same sort of crap you have lying around your house. The one thing I'm pretty sure I don't have lying around: a manufacturing job -- we are supposed to be trying to help displaced manufacturing workers after all.

I suppose there might be a manufacturing job in a box down in the basement -- it's been ages since I went through that junk.

Tell you what -- we'll give them access to the accumulated stuff in my basement, and if any of them find a manufacturing job they can keep it.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 30, 2008 11:45 PM

Wolverine has nothing to give.

Who's Tony Rezko?

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 12:04 AM

"What these statements from two different people are trying to say is that slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans and their lands were all done on an individual basis, and that these sins were not collective, but done individually."

Correct. They were acts of a group of individuals. Those who did not engage in such acts are not accountable.

"That would mean, then, that a country will not be judged by its collective ethos,"

Correct.

"I'm wondering if we're confusing Christianity with Americanism:"

Are you wondering, or are you asserting? Either way, what does that have to do with collective sin?

"As I keep saying, it's not all about money. (And why are you so focused on that?)"

Why is the Bible focused on it? Where your treasure is, your heart is also, right?

"Does your contempt for him know no bounds? "

It knows bounds. Keep in mind that I am only introducing fact. Dude doesn't have his money where his mouth is.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 12:31 AM

No matter what you say, Wolverine will never let go his bite on your pant leg.
And he will never admit it when his position is untenable. Posted by: justintime |

True.

"Does your contempt for him know no bounds?" Rick Nowlin

It is a contempt born of fear. Kevin S., Wolverine and Jesse see the utter failure of conservative Republican policies in international relations, the economy, the mishandling of hurricane Katrina, etc. They fear that the White House will fall in the hands of the Democrats just as Congress did. Since they have nothing positive to say about Republican policies over the past 8 years, they nit pick at the leading Democratic candidate. It is a poor strategy that stems from desperation and fear that the world will not fit into their petty little paradigms.

You have to love the plug for Kevin's blog. Read it sometime. It will truly give you a feel for what narcissism is all about.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 31, 2008 7:00 AM

Wright was wrong and Obama was wrong to remain in that church for so long.

Wrong on both counts. Totally wrong. Rather, Obama was wrong was to denounce Wright in public. I'm sure Wright understands, but I can't imagine that he wasn't hurt by it.

And for all the talk of "hate speech" on the part of Wright, what was truly hateful about this whole incident was the way those intending to discredit Obama's candidacy lifted snippets of Wright's sermons out of their contexts and pasted them on the Internet. Once again, instead of countering Obama's candidacy on the basis of issues and policies, we have another personal smear campaign. That's what is truly hateful, as well as dishonest.

Sometimes you have to stick up for your friends, even if it costs you politically. And in the long run, I think sticking up for Wright would have helped Obama.

And shameful to suggest that Obama should have left Trinity UCC. As Obama said himself, one does not forsake one's family--spiritual or natural.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 8:46 AM

"You have to love the plug for Kevin's blog. Read it sometime. It will truly give you a feel for what narcissism is all about."

You know, my blog has a comments section as well, where you can leave your one-off insults.

"And for all the talk of "hate speech" on the part of Wright, what was truly hateful about this whole incident was the way those intending to discredit Obama's candidacy lifted snippets of Wright's sermons out of their contexts and pasted them on the Internet."

Oh heavens, and I'm sure the Obama campaign will never take anyone else's snippets. So what was the context? Do you have a link to the whole speech containing the AIDS reference?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 9:19 AM

h heavens, and I'm sure the Obama campaign will never take anyone else's snippets.

And should they, they deserve to be called on it. In fact, FactCheck.org has been calling such things on all the candidates.

It's just that I think the Wright snippets are especially egregious, in my view, because of the way they invaded the sanctuary.

D

Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 9:30 AM

Kevin,

"Do you have a scriptural reference to back this up? "

Try this:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself"

Slavery wasn't just an individual sin. Nor is racism. What if recognizing that led to some form of national repentence? Would everyone be on board with that? Probably not. But, what it would do is show that we who live in this nation now, even though we may have had nothing to do with slavery, recognize the effects it had--both the long-term negative effects for black communities and the positive effects for those who benefited from it. And recognizing those effects and understanding them is a form or loving our neighbor, for it is our neighbors who were hurt and are still hurting from the long term effects of slavery and from racism.

The sins against Native Americans also were not individual but national. The effects of those sins are deep and oppressive on Native American communities. Yet, every one of us who are not Native American still reap the benefits from those sins. The computer you are typing on has metallic resources in it--and if they came from the United States, they came from land that was stolen from the Native Americans.

A national response to our national sins sends a message to all citizens that the sins of our nation are not acceptible and raise the standard that we can do better. And it is fully in keeping with the summation of the 10 Commandments Jesus gives us.

On a related topic, I would be interested to know how you decide which parts of the Old Testament we are now allowed to ignore because of Christ's death and resurrection? I come out of a tradition that fully believes the concept of the "sins of the fathers." I'm no longer in that tradition, but I do still see some validity to that. I no longer think those sins are passed on in any spiritual way, but I think they are passed on through family tradition. For example, a child who was abused has a very strong chance of becoming an abuser him/herself. A child exposed to racism is more likely to be racist. I now see prayers to "break the root of sin" in the more practical light of recognizing that behaviors are passed down from generation to generation. Those OT passages therefore, in my mind, expose the deep psychological scars of sin better than any Dr. Phil wisdom could.

Posted by: squeaky | March 31, 2008 9:37 AM

Don:

If Rev. Wright's comments are being taken out of context, the response isn't to whine about the use of "snippets", it's to provide the context.

I noted some time ago that the one thing I haven't seen from Wright's or Obama's defenders is complementary clips from Wright's sermons that serve to put these things in perspective.

Instead, what I see is constant appeals to the importance of something called "Black Liberation Theology" -- followed by shocked and offended responses when anyone questions whether this Theology really flows out of the Christian scriptures.

I'm still waiting for the clip where Wright manages to say something interesting and sane. Are any of his defenders even trying to find one? Or do they all know, deep in their hearts, that sane, soundly Christian sermons were a rarity at Trinity?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 31, 2008 9:50 AM

To the best of my knowledge the Chicago Sun-Times is not affiliated with Fox News.

I understand that the Sun-Times leans conservative.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 31, 2008 10:09 AM

Why are you people spending so much time tearing apart Rev.Wright? There have been several white commentators who have made racist remarks since March 18th one of them is Pat Buchanan he suggests that African Americans wouldn't have been exposed to Christian Salvation if it were not for slavery. Why is white American media not tearing apart Pat Buchanan, obviously because Rev. Wright is black and considered a nut. This is hard to believe coming from an ex-marine, and public servant for forty years. Wake up White America this is the 21st Century already. Lose your old thinking.

Posted by: Blake Hayner | March 31, 2008 10:16 AM

If Rev. Wright's comments are being taken out of context, the response isn't to whine about the use of "snippets", it's to provide the context.

So you ignored the link I provided from the Tribune, that I just referred to in my post that you are here responding to? Context is provided. So you ignored the link to the "Audacity of Hope" sermon? More context.

Context is out there. It's time you read and/or listened.

D

Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 10:21 AM

"Kevin you are not introducing fact you are using a fact to make a slanderous conjecture."

It isn't slander if it is likely true.

"They have not had these children for six months and therefore will get no deduction for their gifts whatsoever."

They will eventually, however, unless they give up the kids again. There is simply no way that two lawyers found the one way to give charitably that would not result in a tax deduction.

"Not everybody gives in order to get. (Should I assume that the only time you do "give" to charity is when you can get a deduction and are therefore a hypocrite?)"

Giving to charity in order to get a tax deduction is pretty dumb. I don't necessarily see that organizing you charitable giving to maximize your tax benefit is a bad thing.

"I know that not all politicians are rich. I know that."

We also know that he is pretty rich, "scraping by" rhetoric aside.

"He is a smart man. That is a fact. I am sure he knew his taxes would be released. Let us hear what he has to say on the subject before we slander his integrity."

He isn't going to say anything about it because there is nothing to say. Why would he bring it up? It's a negative.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 10:44 AM

Now here's a real story for Wolverine, jesse and kevin:
______________________________

"Two top advisors for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) represented one of the nation's most aggressive predatory lenders, contradicting McCain's "straight talk" about America's collapsing housing market.

"John Green, the senator's chief liaison to Congress, and Wayne Berman, his national finance co-chairman, billed more than $720,000 in lobbying fees from 2005 through last year to Ameriquest Mortgage through their lobbying firm," disclosure forms reviewed by the Daily News show. The News revealed the story in Monday's editions of the paper.

Ameriquest, which since has been bought out, was forced to settle suits with 49 states for $325 million. More than 13,680 New York homeowners got taken for a ride by the company, records show.

"They would be defined as the most blatant and aggressive predatory lenders out of everybody," said Bruce Marks, head of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 11:06 AM

The comparison between Wright and Buchanan fails because most responsible conservative spokesmen have distanced themselves from Buchanan, some quite publicly. He's been more or less evicted from mainstream conservatism for better than a decade.

Actually, when he was running for president Buchanan abandoned orthodox conservative economic policy, advocating protectionism, and for that he was run out of the Republican Party. His racist comments didn't do that.

I've read the transcripts of Wright's sermons, and what they look like to me is the buildup to a rant. At any rate, I've yet to see the "context that justifies the AIDS accusation or the lionization of Louis Farrakhan. For me, those are the items that I find most bothersome By comparison the "God d**n America" and "Ridin' dirty" quotes are piddling.

The basis for the AIDS accusation is above. And as for Louis Farrakhan, he would be a non-entity if the church -- and specifically the white church -- hadn't fallen down on the job. You'd best ignore him; I have for years.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 31, 2008 11:35 AM

"Context is out there. It's time you read and/or listened."

Hey Don. Sorry, I missed that transcript of the speech with the AIDS reference. Can you post that again?

"In fact, he was referencing a white, Reagan-appointed ambassador referencing Malcolm X."

It wasn't the source of the statement that was troublesome, it was the, um, context... Citing 9/11 as our just desserts got Robertson and Falwell in hot water for the same reason.

I would also note that plenty of white people tore them apart for their statements.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 12:06 PM

Actually, when he was running for president Buchanan abandoned orthodox conservative economic policy, advocating protectionism, and for that he was run out of the Republican Party. His racist comments didn't do that.

My white evangelical church at the time went from supporting Buchanan to denouncing him immediately because of his racism.

Posted by: aaron | March 31, 2008 12:29 PM

My white evangelical church at the time went from supporting Buchanan to denouncing him immediately because of his racism.

But that's not why he was forced out of the GOP.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 31, 2008 12:39 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

As for Wright's embrace of Farrakhan, remember that Wright comes from that generation where anything that was "black nationalist" was in vogue.

One would hope that at some point a minister would learn to be more discriminating than simply to embrace whatever is "in vogue".

There was a time once when white hoods and burning crosses were "in vogue" among a certain American demographic, and as you have pointed out on more than one occasion, certain churches embraced that "style" long after it should have been clear to us that it wasn't particularly flattering and that our Groom wasn't particularly fond of it. And as you have also pointed out, our little fashion faux pas has repercussions to this day.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 31, 2008 1:36 PM

Kevin
I know a very wealthy man who never gives money personally in a tax deductible fashion. He gives it corporately because it then becomes an expense and is totally written off. He is actually quite generous but his tax statement would not reveal this. I do not know what the truth is about Senator Obama's giving and as far as I can tell you do not either. I think the point is you seem to want to be logical only when it suits you.
You are just using these facts as a barb, and all's fair, as they say, you just do not have the right to say you are just bringing up the facts.

I find it offensive that these kind of "facts" are available to the general public at all. Just because a person runs for office does not justify it. Your use of these facts only solidifies my thinking in this regard.

Perhaps you will be found to be correct. What will that mean? A man who was not brought up in wealth is not as giving as you or I think he he should be, yet sees his life's work as sacrificial? Instead of giving up money he earned he gave up the right to earn more?
Could it mean he doesn't control the finances in his household and leaves these decisions up to his wife? Does she then contribute to her charity of choice in some manner not reported, as my wealthy friend does?
There are many here who seem to regard their creating wealth through industry and job creation enough of a "gift" to society. I might disagree with them but they certainly have their arguments to justify their actions.
Being a Senator is actually quite costly. The decision to be a US senator is not always self serving. Some do not do nearly as well as many might suppose. There are many facts here, some are known, some are not. What those facts might mean is simply your conjecture.
Keep asking for more info if you want to, just stop the accusations.
What people give and how they do so is their own personal business.
By the way, those that you say will get a tax deduction next year, may or may not. If they did it would still not make up for the thousands they will have given this year, nor will it stop them next year if they decide to "give" again. It is just not the deciding factor. I do not fault someone for receiving a deduction, by all means, deduct away! I do think only giving when you can do so should not be the main consideration. But that is just my opinion. I was merely pointing out that some might turn the tables of "logic" on you and call you a hypocrite also.

Posted by: wayne | March 31, 2008 1:41 PM

"...most responsible conservative spokesmen have distanced themselves from Buchanan, some quite publicly. He's been more or less evicted from mainstream conservatism for better than a decade. Just off the top of my head I recall that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and David Frum all wrote articles sharply critical of Buchanan."

The Neocon movement has appropriated "conservatism" and labelled traditional conservatives "paleo-cons."

National Review is now a neocon publication - its founder, William F. Buckley, distanced himself from it and its conservative borad members from his time resigned. Buckley eventually opposed the war and passed his pronouncement on the Bush administration that it wasn't conservative.

Frum, Krauthammer and Will all toe the neocon line.

Let's not forget the neocons emerged from liberalism, angry that liberalism wasn't enthusiastic about militarism and imperialism as conduits to spread liberalism. The idea of a military and imperial crusade to force democracy on the world is a mid-sixties, McNameric liberal one at heart.

The American Conservative (www.amconmag.com) provides a forum for a lot of conservative views besides Buchanan's, all of whom have been purged from the publications the neocons seized control of.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 31, 2008 2:05 PM

I have it pretty easy now, the Lord sees us through, also a good Union helped . ;o) Posted by: Mick

Do you support the Union movement now, Mick?

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 2:19 PM

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 2:11 PM

Truth be told - in the last 12 years in the primary - my canidate dropped out. I was a big E. Dole supporter. This year - I would have to admit that McCain was a close 3rd. Currectly - I am having too much fun watching the Dems fight each other for the spotlight. They also spend a lot of time, effort and money defending themselves. I believe that it will go to the convention floor - and you will witness the Clinton Machine in action.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 31, 2008 2:38 PM

You have no favorite candidate, Moderatelad?
So are you planning to stay home on election day?

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 2:43 PM

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 2:43 PM

Never stay home. I vote every time I am given that 'privilege'.

OK - I will be voting for McCain.

But you have to admit - the slinging that is going on between Clinton and Obama is fun to watch.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 31, 2008 3:25 PM

Thanks, Mick.

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 3:49 PM

Hi Mick,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I'm not really saying government should fix things. In fact, come to think of it, this kind of national recognition of our nation's past sins should actually come from within the church. I have this book on intercessory prayer by Jim Goll that I have never read, but I think he speaks of repenting for past national sins.

With that repentence, I think, comes an understanding of the damage our nation's actions have done whole generations of people. Perhaps it is not just a "white" thing, but I'm pretty sure that most whites have not experienced racism to the extent that non-white Americans have.

I think someone else pointed out on another thread that it isn't just that minorities hold on to the pain that we, as a nation, can't get past racism. In order to let go of the pain, the cause of that pain also must stop, and most non-whites sense racism very frequently. It's hard to get over something that isn't over.

The church can and should take a lead in this--what would it mean to this nation if there was an official day (or longer) of repentence for this nation's past sins? Some would argue it isn't NT Biblical...the OT tells us to repent and He will turn and heal our land (a verse used on the back of the pro-life days of prayer I participated in). I don't think Jesus meant for us to just toss out the OT just because He has fulfilled it. In the Kingdom of God, we acknowledge how we have hurt others, either purposely or not, and work for a just society.

Posted by: squeaky | March 31, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm sure you all think Promise Keepers are conservative and they encouraged racial discussions and exchanges back in the early 90s.

Well, Promise Keepers is a conservative organization, and Bill McCartney noted that many men who were part of it didn't want to address the racial issue. (McCartney will tell you that when he was in high school he was a beneficiary of "white privilege" and has never forgotten it.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 31, 2008 4:45 PM

Hey Don. Sorry, I missed that transcript of the speech with the AIDS reference. Can you post that again?

I think I said that I haven't found a transcript of the AIDS sermon. But here's the link to the Chicago Tribune article that has transcripts of the 9-11, Clinton did dirty, and God damn America sermons.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,705161.story

It wasn't the source of the statement that was troublesome, it was the, um, context... Citing 9/11 as our just desserts got Robertson and Falwell in hot water for the same reason.

Read the transcript. That isn't at all what Wright was saying. Remember, Robertson and Falwell wanted to blame the gays, the ACLU, etc. for 9-11. Wright doesn't go there at all.

I've read the transcripts of Wright's sermons, and what they look like to me is the buildup to a rant.

Sounds more like a stylistic complaint than a substantive one. Maybe you don't like Wright's preaching style?

D

Posted by: Don | March 31, 2008 4:57 PM

Mick,

It would really depend on how you define repentance. if you define as receiving God's mercy and forgiveness then I could agree with you. But I do find it hard to ask for feeling negative toward our country's history and the beneficiaries of that history. It strikes me as racist.

p

Posted by: Payshun | March 31, 2008 5:31 PM

I am fiscally conservative - socially moderate, says Moderatelad.
_________
Are Reagan and Bush II fiscally conservative, in your view?
_________
Gore could walk in and take the place on the Dem Ticket. (now that would be interesting)
_________
Interesting indeed.
Well Gore certainly deserves it.
He won the 2000 election and he's been my President for the last seven long years.
But he says repeatedly he won't accept it.
I take him at his word.
But if he did would you vote for him instead of McCain?

The world is watching this election like never before.
I think they should let the Obama/Clinton contest play out all the way through the Democratic Party convention.
Let the world see how our democratic process works, warts and all.

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 5:43 PM

Who do you assume benefits from that history?

The whole question of White Privilege is a little hard for me, personally. We didn't have money or any of the things money could buy. My dad was a lard sandwich-eating hillbilly who never would have left his 2 room cabin if it weren't for WWII and his GI Bill.

Bush's tax breaks haven't helped me at all. Neither did Affirmative Action. I will get my $600 stimulus, but if I could vote on that I'd veto it.

Envy is a false promise -- you really don't want any one else's life. Being white isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by: Connie | March 31, 2008 6:01 PM

"Perhaps you will be found to be correct. What will that mean? A man who was not brought up in wealth is not as giving as you or I think he he should be, yet sees his life's work as sacrificial? Instead of giving up money he earned he gave up the right to earn more?"

Dude made six figures, and parlayed his experience into millions of dollars, fame and (fanatical) adoration. I am correct, and it will mean that his money was not where his mouth is with respect to his faith or his ideals of social justice. He is running on a platform of asking others to do what he will not.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 6:53 PM

I like Obama's speech. I think it was great for the country -- and a refreshing change from these blogs.

I won't vote for him, or should I say -- didn't vote for him. He's made a good speech -- I don't think that qualifies him for President. Nor do I think the art of bringing people together makes someone a good President.

Carter was a good man and a good peace-maker but most will agree that he was not a good president. But he still does great things for our country.

That's a very different discussion than what people like talking about here.

Posted by: frankie | March 31, 2008 7:04 PM

Kevin
I think I have heard you once or twice defending people of wealth and accusations against them for not being charitable.
Maybe he is taking care of all of his cousins and his grandmother. Or maybe he isn't really a follower of the Reverend Wright but in reality he is a T.D.Jake's prosperity doctrine mole, spying on all those "Black Liberation Theologians". I don't know. It's none of my business to know. I do not need a guy to be St Francis before I decide if his ideas have any merit. I think I remember you coming out for Hilary, do you think she is beyond character assassination? I have always liked McCain and he surely isn't beyond criticism. Sheesh! the guy lobbied for Charley Keating etal, before the savings and loan debacle went down and cost me my job.

Again what is on his taxes may not tell the whole story. You may have a few facts but you cannot have the all the facts, not yet.
Perhaps you are right, though from what I have read of the man I doubt it. No one is that cut and dry and you are wrong to keep this up, unless you are his accountant or somehow have become the fly on his wall.
I am not saying he is the greatest guy or that he in fact gives anymore to charity than you accuse him of, just that your argument is not as founded in fact as you want everyone to believe. Is it just that you want to believe it? You have one fact. That may make a sentence, but as a novel its boring.

I will say one thing for him He certainly has been able to stand up to every "fast boat" attack so far, and done so with dignity as far as I can tell. The guy has guts.

Posted by: wayne | March 31, 2008 7:34 PM

Posted by: justintime | March 31, 2008 5:43 PM

Are Reagan and Bush II fiscally conservative, in your view?

Reagan yes - Bush II - not so much.

Interesting indeed.
Well Gore certainly deserves it.
He won the 2000 election and he's been my President for the last seven long years.

He may have won the popular vote - I don't think so. But he lost the Electoral College.

But he says repeatedly he won't accept it.
I take him at his word.

Wellstone said he would only be in office two terms - so much for taking him at his word.

But if he did would you vote for him instead of McCain?

Let's see - Father of the Internet - Inspiration for the book Love Story. Gore plays a little fast and loose with the truth - I did not vote for him back then - I would not today.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | March 31, 2008 7:55 PM

"This is sad . The kids growing up need to know what behaviors are dangerous , and not to blame others for what is in their control .

Reverend Wright is right on teaching a Gospel that promotes communtiy , and promotes taking care of one another . Hopefully this was taken out of context in regards where HIV came from , you context however is clear ,

Obama clearly rejects this , the CDC and most people with any medical knowledge and concern for the lives of their fellow man do also . Whats your point?
Mick

Thanks for assuming I have a point, Mick.
Unlike Kevin, who doesn't believe that there is such a thing as racism (Just a group of mis-guided individuals) or that God judges nations since there are no nations but rather groups of individuals that happen to agree (although it's perfectly alright for a "nation" to make any immigration laws it wishes), I believe that for us to ignore the racial component in the AIDS situation is to perpetuate the problem. Yes, AIDS is transmitted by specific behaviors (although some here have rightly pointed out that their are innocent victims also). However, when we say it is solely behavior specific it allows us to put ourselves in the place of the "proud Pharisee" in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. We smugly infer that"I thank you God I am not like them". We need to understand the environment that allows Rev. Wright to have credence when he propounds a conspiratorial cause for AIDS rather than decry him as a "liar". The CDC admits that there are several contributing factors in the unbalanced AIDS numbers I referenced above. Some of these are racism and the prevalence of AIDS among the prison population (a well documented shameful miscarriage of "justice for all" of the US law enforcement). It is well known that law enforcement has it's "no go zones" in black neighborhoods and I believe this carries over into administrative justice also. If there is a war on drugs, why has it not been enforced so that those neighborhoods can be as free of violence as the white neighborhoods?
On a more positive note, I was able to finally find something that I could agree with Kevin about. He said that the AIDS situation is about broken covenant. The covenant that was broken is equal protection under the law promised by "White" from day one.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 31, 2008 10:07 PM

"I think I have heard you once or twice defending people of wealth and accusations against them for not being charitable."

Sure.

"Maybe he is taking care of all of his cousins and his grandmother."

To some degree, perhaps.

"Or maybe he isn't really a follower of the Reverend Wright"

I suspect that this is very true.

"but in reality he is a T.D.Jake's prosperity doctrine mole,"

Less true.

"spying on all those "Black Liberation Theologians"."

Oh, snap!

"I don't know. It's none of my business to know."

Really? Then why is he pushing the other candidates to make their tax statements available?

"I do not need a guy to be St Francis before I decide if his ideas have any merit."

He isn't really telling us about his ideas. He is running as St. Francis.

"I think I remember you coming out for Hilary,"

That's overstating it a hair.

"do you think she is beyond character assassination?"

Oh heavens no. Have you seen what she's done to Obama?

"I have always liked McCain and he surely isn't beyond criticism."

He sure isn't. His 2000 campaign was disingenuous in many of the same ways Obama's 2008 campaign is disingenuous.

"Sheesh! the guy lobbied for Charley Keating etal, before the savings and loan debacle went down and cost me my job."

Sorry to hear that.

"You may have a few facts but you cannot have the all the facts, not yet.

Well, he barely donated to his church. Look, I have a right to be unimpressed with the guy. I am not required to believe that he would make a great president. Let me ask you this. What criticisms leveled against Obama are the most valid, in your view?

"You have one fact."

I have a series of facts. He gave a pittance for five consecutive years at least.

"That may make a sentence, but as a novel its boring."

Well, that's Obama's hope, isn't it? He is a fascinating narrative, and criticisms of his candidacy are same-old, same-old. That's what he wants.

"The guy has guts. "

How so? Let's here him defend the platform he has on his website, and explain how we can afford it. That would take guts. To date, he has had one instance in which the press has been even moderately critical of his campaign. He barely weathered the storm. Obama is a distant third among those left standing in the guts department.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 31, 2008 10:25 PM

"The guy has guts. "

kevin s: How so?

Every time he appears in public, he displays guts. You can bet there are sick, twisted, bigoted people out there who would love to eliminate him permanently.

Posted by: carl copas | March 31, 2008 11:11 PM

Connie said:
My brother stitched up a white kid on our kitchen floor -- he'd been jumped by a black gang. You can be killed for being white too. It all depends on the neighborhood.

I've always believed that pain is the great leveler of mankind -- and is a gift from God in that sense. It brings us to a common place of humility and maybe even helplessness.

Me:
No argument from me.

Mick said:
If the religious left did not have the religious right to rail against, what would they do ?
Eventually the left would be asking why they need you .

Me:
More work on helping the poor and being a safe place for the marginalized. It's the same thing we do when you folks on the right are not around.

Mick said:
I saw repentance as a spirtual acknowldgement of sin , in this case a sin of slavery committed by a nation . requesting the Lord's mercy in healing the hurt and injustice it has caused . I would hope we all could ask forgiveness for this .

As Americans we should . or am I being nationalistic ? I do believe like you some sins appear worse then others . Owning another person would be one I agree . But I am not sure we have that ability to judge sin . remember that looking upon another women in lust is adultry , holding hatred of your brother is murder. Abortion to me is taking a life , to you a ho hum sin guess. Same sex relations is a sin , out of wedlock sex is a sin , you called me a bigot for saying I did not support same sex marriage . Whose sin is greater , me not wanting same sex marriage , those having same sex relations , you calling me a bigot , or the guy reading this who saying mich is an ass .

Me:
It doesn't matter to me. I don't think you are listening to everything I am saying. It's not just slavery (that's enough but let's keep going,) but we are talking genocide as well.

Millions of Africans were thrown overboard on their way here. Their deaths deserved to commemorated just as surely as George Washington maybe even more so. God is very specific when it comes to genocide and you will see this theme repeated over and over again in the Prophets. when we don't honor the dead and do right by remembering their sacrifice we perpetuate racism. I refuse to do that.

Sin is sin in the eyes of God but even according to the law and the resurrection some will suffer more for their sins because their sins are greater. I am not talking about judgement in hell I am talking about dealing in the here and now. God gives the church and the state specific powers to judge sin here on earth to act on his behalf for justice.

I think we are supposed to do that. We have no power to condemn to hell and I would not want that job ever. But we do have a responsibility to judge in the here and now. Even if it is imperfect, it still represents God's heart for justice. That's what has to happen to begin to kill racism.

You said:
God judges the heart also , what happens if an irish Indentured servant in 17 th century America murdered his master to gain freedom . I think we are better off repenting then judging who has the greater sin .

Me:
Further describe your idea of repentance. I want to better understand what you mean.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 1, 2008 2:45 AM

I loved my grandmother, the daughter of German immigrants who raised 4 daughters during the depression and managed to get them all educated after my grandfather passed away.
She cleaned, cooked and sewed. She saved things and recycled furniture and other family treasures for me. She brought me gifts, made Christmas cookies and sewed my Easter dresses when I was a child. I miss her dearly. I am a privileged middle class white American.

But my Godmothers where women of color and their gifts were just as precious and their sacrifices where often unbearable.
They harvested the sugar that was supplied for the cookies even when their children went hungry. They picked the winter navel oranges that filled our Christmas with their children laboring next to them. They picked the tomatoes and other vegetables for our salads. As share croppers they pulled the cotton with swollen hands for those little dresses that my grandmother sewed and the baby quilts that she filled with batting.
My grandmother restored the antiques we used for furniture with worn hands but my Godmothers lived in America for thousands of years on the land with out destroying the forest that grew the trees. Nor did they disturb the mountain tops or rivers to get the coal for the industry that brought electricity to warm our house and cook on.

I am a white American child but when I look about me and see everything I have access to I realize that I have many Godmothers - of every color who lost their freedom, their families and often their lives, in ways which contributed to my security and benefit.
I can not possibly repay them what I owe for most of them have passed away. The only way I can make amends is to share this bounty, fairly with their children and great, great grandchildren. I hope I have inherited my grandmothers longevity so that I can have enough time to make a difference in the world and show my gratitude.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 1, 2008 6:59 AM

BTW- Ms Cynthia:

What a beautiful and inspired post! Thank you!

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 1, 2008 7:57 AM

God is very specific when it comes to genocide and you will see this theme repeated over and over again in the Prophets.

Oh he is VERY specific on how to commit genocide and what to do with the prisoners, Numbers 31:17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Praise be his mercy.

Posted by: aaron | April 1, 2008 8:58 AM

If the religious left did not have the religious right to rail against, what would they do? Eventually the left would be asking why they need you.

The religious "left" far predates the religious right, which didn't exist until the late 1970s and no one outside its purview even knew about until 1980; Jim Wallis, for example, has been around since the early '70s. Besides, since high school I've been an independent operator never beholden to any ideology or party -- I am not as critical of the "liberals" primarily because they're not as well organized but also because they were in bed with secular interests from the word go, which was a clue to me that they wanted only authority.

Now, Moderatelad, you're upset with me because I say openly that your sources are flawed. That, however, says something about your character because I know for a fact that your sources are flawed and your protestations will not change that -- it's like being mad at me because I tell you that 2 + 2 does not equal 5 even though you want it to.

Wolverine -- A friendly reminder: This is the second time you've parodied my analysis of conservative ideology and practice, and you should know it doesn't make your side look any better because it appears that you have no real answers to your critics.

Anyway, below is a piece by one of my co-workers that appeared in today's paper.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08092/869473-153.stm

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 1, 2008 10:14 AM

A friendly reminder: This is the second time you've parodied my analysis of conservative ideology and practice, and you should know it doesn't make your side look any better because it appears that you have no real answers to your critics.

No need for real answer when no real analysis was presented, just your opinion. Hence, parody.

Posted by: aaron | April 1, 2008 11:05 AM

Good essay by Tony Norman in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
Do you work for the Post-Gazette, Rick?

Posted by: justintime | April 1, 2008 12:00 PM

Pastor Jeff --

Why? Both confuse the temporary with the eternal.

I'm not saying the oppressed should stay oppressed, I'm just saying the effort will not bring about the desired result.

The Church is China firmly believes it was oppression that made it grow. (Nothing comes to life unless it dies.)

Posted by: frankie | April 1, 2008 12:26 PM

Wolverine's comment was pretty amusing. Calm down, Rick.

"1. If God doesn't judge nations, what business do we have asking Him to bless America?"

Fair enough. Bad theology either way. That said, one asks for prosperity for the country, while Wright's version asks for destruction. We are electing a person to lead this country, and I would prefer one who embraces the former paradigm.

"Rev. Wright was condemning the blatant show of hypocrisy when the Congress all joined hands on the Capitol steps to sing "God Bless America" after 9/11."

What was hypocritical about it?

"I think that would qualify under idolatry."

I don't think asking God to bless something makes it into an idol.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 1, 2008 12:36 PM

I don't think it was hypocritical for congress to sing "God Bless America". I think it was one of our best moments as a nation.

If your son was hit in a head-on collision I don't think you'd list his sins or even think about them -- I think you'd pray God would save him.

How the prayer of "God Bless America" can be seen as a hypocritical act is beyond me. We were all humbled that day. If you think that badly of all the acts of turning to God for help in those days (like when O'Hare airport burst into the Lord's Prayer) then you need to look at your own heart. You think horrible things about people and cannot see the good in them.

Posted by: frankie | April 1, 2008 12:55 PM

Liberals do not only excuse Jeremiah Wright's comments, because he was an African American man speaking to a primarily African American community. European Americans make similar excuses for the racial jokes that they frequently pass among themselves, and people of good taste will not repeat in the company of a person from a different race.

We should recognize different power relationships going on here. Jeremiah Wright is calling his people from a position of degradation to a position of empowerment. We with jokes like, "What do you call a white guy with three black guys? victim" or "What do you call a white guy with five black guys? coach" are seeking to maintain our positions of power and stating in tactless humor that African Americans do not deserve to participate in the benefits of our society. Some will be offended that I know the above jokes, just as some were offended that Jeremiah Wright made the comments that he did, but what we are really offended about is the lowering of the veil that divides two societies located in one nation.

Those of us from European descent should listen to Jeremiah Wright and ask ourselves how his anger is justified and how we might change ourselves to grant equal privilege to the African American community. It is not for us to deny their experience. The African American community might consider how they might adjust the way that they speak among themselves so that when their language is overheard, it will allow the white community to not react defensively, but find ways to share our political economic power productively for the benefit of the African American community.

Posted by: Martin | April 1, 2008 1:53 PM

Whose sin is greater , me not wanting same sex marriage , those having same sex relations , you calling me a bigot , or the guy reading this who saying mich is an ass .

Me:
It doesn't matter to me. I don't think you are listening to everything I am saying. It's not just slavery (that's enough but let's keep going,) but we are talking genocide as well.

Let me clarify this last little point. The reason I can't judge it is because I am not God. Can you judge it?

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 1, 2008 3:07 PM

I said the same thing (although not on this blog.)

If Wright is a prophet -- was Falwell? His anger was against what he passionately saw as sin. He made a bunch of explosive statements and got ridiculed for it.

Posted by: Connie | April 1, 2008 4:42 PM

Don't worry he'll be back.

Posted by: justintime | April 1, 2008 8:11 PM

Posted by: justintime | April 1, 2008 8:11 PM

Don't worry he'll be back.

4 of my posts were never allowed and are out there somewhere in Beliefworld. It seems that some of what some of us would like to say is being edited out of the general posting and I don't know why. What I had to say on the ones that are gone was nowhere as inflamitory as some that attack conservatives. But I guess that this site is 98% liberal friendly.

Too much more of this and I might just hang it up and go somewhere else that is more understanding. I will also declair that Wallis and Sojo are just unofficial sites for the DNC.

Blessings to all - even those who have their posts removed.
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 1, 2008 8:35 PM

"How so? Let's here him defend the platform he has on his website, and explain how we can afford it." kevin s

Given what GWB is spending on the Iraq war, Kevin, why should cost be a concern for any future American president?

Oh right, there is that little matter of your economy being in the toilet. I wonder how that happened?

Posted by: canucklehead | April 2, 2008 1:42 AM

Study Concludes 'Fat-ism' Is More Widespread Than Racism

It's illegal to discriminate against someone because of race or gender, but our culture condones a bias against people who are overweight.

There are no federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of weight, and only Michigan has such a law, according to a new study from Yale University.
As a result, the researchers contend, weight discrimination is spiraling upward, and that's a dangerous trend that could add fuel to the obesity epidemic.
Weight discrimination "occurs in employment settings and daily interpersonal relationships virtually as often as race discrimination, and in some cases even more frequently than age or gender discrimination," the researchers report in the current issue of the International Journal of Obesity.

Watch this one - good for a 'big' laugh!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/study-concludes-fatism_n_94616.html

Posted by: justintime | April 2, 2008 1:05 PM

I am so sickened by the Reverend Wrights remarks and the fact tha Obama would still support him and Americans would still support Obama makes me even sicker. I don't get it. Why do we want to believe that we deserved 9/11 are we just so down on our American selves that a person like wright or Obama can lowere our self esteem to the point that we settle! I will never ever vote for Obama ever!

Posted by: Sandie Vista | April 4, 2008 7:29 PM

While I may vote for Obama (certainly tired of bush)I don't appreciate the "inuendo" that as a "white" person I don't "understand" or "get it" unless I vote for Obama. That kind of circular reasoning is not honest or right. If I vote for him I will do so because I think he can do more for "all" people in this country and get us out of the quagmire of the bush war. Not because of so called "white" guilt. Peace!

Posted by: Steve Snead | April 7, 2008 5:38 PM