Diana Butler Bass wrote:

In recent events, some Americans dismissed Wright as deficient because he is not white and did not adhere to the norms of polite discourse.

Yes, and other Americans rejected Wright because he teaches a theology that is difficult to reconcile with the faith handed down to the saints, and because he is prone to make slanderous accusations.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 11:46 AM

Unfortunately, his "slanderous" accusations are most often rooted in historical fact. Rev. Wright is a flashpoint for many because he dares to speak of the unspeakable, and that makes ALL of us uncomfortable. His rhetoric is sometimes harsh, but he speaks from the viewpoint of one who has seen the dark currents of mankind's history, and is compelled by his faith to remind us that we have much more work to do, so that we can truly live Jesus' words. He is like a parent who lectures his wayward child of their misdeeds, but then offers them guidance so that they may live a better life.

Doing God's work isn't easy, or comfortable, but it is His work, and we have chosen to follow Him. Once we have reconciled ourselves to Him, we must reconcile ourselves to each other, no matter how painful that may be, and God Bless Rev. Wright for calling upon us to remember the past in order not to repeat it!

Pray for Peace!

Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | April 28, 2008 12:23 PM

The irony as it has struck me is that Falwell, Robertson, Billy Graham and others condemned America in ever harsher words for decades, and no one seemed to have anything to say about their "un-Americaness". All of a sudden the African American pastor of a African American presidential candidate says this and everyone is losing their minds!

Posted by: splinterlog | April 28, 2008 1:02 PM

The irony as it has struck me is that Falwell, Robertson, Billy Graham and others condemned America in ever harsher words for decades, and no one seemed to have anything to say about their "un-Americaness".

Graham discontinued that kind of rhetoric years ago. But the other two men were building empires and thus only interested in scapegoating others because that's how the $$$ rolls in. Wright, on the other hand, had nothing to gain by saying what he did. (Keep in mind that he preached that infamous phrases in 2003.)

I can't recall anyone criticizing Dr. Wright because he isn't white. I haven't even heard much criticism of his radical views on history and race relations.

That's the problem people don't recognize. If you're black and angry you're dismissed as a crackpot, but if you're white and angry you just might get a talk radio show.

Most of the criticisms fairly addressed his outrageous conspiracy theories and the "God condemn America" sermon.

Conspiracy theories? Maybe. But "God damn America"? That was totally on the one because he followed it with "because she thinks she's God."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 1:17 PM

"HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell, despite what she came up with for the faith-based debate."

You are soooo right.

Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 1:25 PM

HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell, despite what she came up with for the faith-based debate.

Her religious views are actually quite deep, truth be told. When Bill was president she regularly attended the same Bible study as Susan Baker, wife of GHWB aide James Baker, and from the word go often referrred to her faith publicly. (But that didn't make the media.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 1:33 PM

Sylvia's analysis of the political situation is pretty accurate. Clinton's campaign has to love the fact that Wright is continuing to make news. Regardless of how well Wright acquits himself, the fact that he's still making news hurts Obama. He will make a dozen logical, correct statements and then make one illogical, wacky statement and that is the one that will be played on the news because that's what sells. It's bad for The One.

Posted by: Eric | April 28, 2008 2:00 PM

"We have things in our past that make us proud."

No, not really. Our nation and its population have produced ideas, institutions and other things that have enriched our culture. But I can only be really proud of what I do, of what I decide, of what I build or create. My nation does not make me proud, just because it has done some good things. That is not what nations exist for.

"Our ancestors have done things of which we are ashamed."

Balderdash. Our ancestors have done things of which THEY ought to have been ashamed, perhaps. But I feel no shame at all. I was not born during the time of slavery, I was not around during the internment of the Japanese, etc. I have been involved in some things, in my life, which leave me personally ashamed, and for which I have had to offer apologies, for which I have had to repent, ask forgiveness of both men and God, but I feel no shame for the history of my nation, and I do not accept that I ought to start. As a prime example, I currently owe no African-American person anything because some of my ancestors may have held some of their ancestors in slavery. That was not my fault. Nor is it now my shame.

Posted by: Joekc | April 28, 2008 2:11 PM

Diane called the discussions in the media involving Rev. Wright as "sophisticated and thoughtful." That they were may make them stumbling blocks for some people.

In all fairness, why not compare Wright with Hagee, Robertson, and Falwell, who declared after both 9/11 and Katrina that these tragedies were punishment for the sins of the country? Or that Osama Bin Laden was a tool used by God to call America to repentance? They're white, however.

Most of the people who are incensed about Jeremiah Wright didn't plan to vote for Obama anyway -- and are grateful to have this controversy so they can point to someone else's behavior for their choices rather than their own biases.

If Hillary Clinton's faith is deep, I'm wondering why the I-will-do-anything-to-be-President strategy is central to her campaign? "The ends justify the means" is not a teaching of Jesus.

And unrecorded history? Did you learn about the Sand Creek Massacre, an attack on a Cheyenne village if women and children by John Chivington (a Methodist minister)? Do you know about the two African-American communities in Florida that were wiped out by white folks because they limited the Anglo prosperity?

What about Melungeons? Are you aware that in the Apalachians there is a large group of citizens of mixed racial history -- white, black and Indian --
who were discriminated against -- with some communities and even states (Virginia) having specific laws that prohibited them from voting and taking part in society, as was standard practice for African-Americans?

How about Woodrow Wilson's virulent racism -- or the male companion who lived in the White House during the presidency of the never-married James Buchanan?

This stuff never appeared in the history books I studied. A good basic resource to start with is a book entitled "Lies My Teachers Told Me." Can't remember the author off hand.

Unmeasured opinions chosen with minimal reflection are a disadvantage for those who hold them and for their aduiences, too.

Posted by: openeyes | April 28, 2008 2:23 PM

openeyes -

I heard all that in history in the public schools, with the exception of the story about James Buchanan. A pity yours were defective. In addition, I've read a lot of history since.

Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 2:30 PM

Balderdash. Our ancestors have done things of which THEY ought to have been ashamed, perhaps. But I feel no shame at all.

"The past is never dead. It isn't even past."--Faulkner

Joekc, you continue to benefit from the misdeeds of your ancestors. We all do, if we're white, European Americans. We live on land that was confiscated from native communities; we eat food grown on that land. We prosper because of decisions they made to oppress others. We all need to repent and work to right the wrongs of the past. If we're unwilling to accept responsibility for these evils, then we perpetuate them.

There's no easy out. But there is a way out. It's what Diana, and Rev. Wright, are talking about.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 28, 2008 2:59 PM

If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue.

I find it a particular source of dismay that so many well-intentioned Christians are rushing to defend Wright's demagoguery as "prophetic." It seems to me that reinforcing a congregation's paranoid ideas is the exact opposite of "prophetic."

We live in a country and at a time when "speaking truth to power" has become a beloved liberal cliche. This makes me laugh, because I think our real trouble is in speaking the truth to our friends and to each other.

People in the U.S. risk very little when they "speak truth to power" but they risk a lot more when they speak truth to their fellow citizens.

Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 3:13 PM

For me, as someone who spent years to the left of center, Wright hits the "left wing hyprocisy and mendacity is just as bad as right wing hypocrisy and mendacity."

The man is in part or full a demagogue, and only the color of his skin keeps people from honest recognition of that fact.

Unless you think Jesus would have gotten in front of a congregation and lied to them, and supported them in bald-faced lies. Kind of the opposite of "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 3:23 PM

On the Falwell and Robertson comparison…

First, as it has already been pointed out, there was a negative reaction to their anti-American claims about 911. Secondly, and more importantly, Robertson and Falwell were not longtime friends and mentors to someone running for president like Wright is with Obama.

His notion that we only learn about the “good” or “white” parts of America’s history was not my experience. I learned much more about Harriet Tubman than James Madison. I read more Angelou than Frost.

Kevin, is your church, by chance, on Emerson in uptown?

Posted by: DITE | April 28, 2008 3:39 PM

If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue.

No white preacher would even need to say that -- you'd have such an allegation broadcast on all the TV networks and published in every newspaper, plus talk-radio would have a field day. You'd have congressional hearings and plenty of money would be spent to combat it. And so on, and so on ... which, now that I think about it, was probably his ultimate point. Virtually everyone knows that something that would happen to blacks of that magnitude would not result in that kind of outcry.

To give you another instance of where I think Wright may have been going with that remark, have you noticed that almost all of these "missing persons" reports that have gone national over the past few years were of young, attractive white females? I hadn't noticed that myself until someone pointed it out.

First off the comparison between Wright and Falwell actually points to Sojo's failures. Few conservative politicians or commentators supported Falwell's 9-11 comments. I certainly didn't.

However, in fact, a lot of the common people did -- and that was what they wanted, specifically for fund-raising purposes. Yeah, Falwell apologized later but not after donations likely went up; I understand that at one point he said something to the effect that "If it weren't for gays and abortion I'd be out of business."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 3:58 PM

sojo must address this and try to convince the blue collar guy to hang on and vote for obama. when you add in bill ayers and rev wright it will be very difficult to get the blue collar vote. roger

Posted by: roger | April 28, 2008 4:27 PM

Rick,

Whether Rev. Falwell or Rev. Wright make money off of outrageous comments -- I suspect both have -- is beside the point. The point is that Sojo is supposed to be a leader, not a follower, and a principled voice, not a partisan one. Falwell says something ridiculous and most conservative commentators criticize him for it. Rev. Wright says something at least as ridiculous, and Sojo bends itself into a pretzel trying to deny the obvious.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 4:29 PM

Falwell says something ridiculous and most conservative commentators criticize him for it. Rev. Wright says something at least as ridiculous, and Sojo bends itself into a pretzel trying to deny the obvious.

But intent has to be measured. As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, but you can't say the same for Wright, who literally had nothing to gain by saying in public some of the same statements that black folks for decades have been saying in private. You should worry about that part.

And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 4:39 PM

"Kevin, is your church, by chance, on Emerson in uptown?"

It is. Do I know you?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 5:11 PM

"Well what I meant was that neither received the equivalent of death threats. "

Well, death threats come with being a divisive political figure (doesn't make them acceptable), and I would guess that Falwell dealt with them. But the lion-share of the reaction has been simply to be a bit taken aback by the nature of the statements.

"However, in fact, a lot of the common people did "

Ah yes, the common people. Clingy, them.

"As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, "

Even if I concede your version of the narrative, the only revelation is that Wright is more committed to his viewpoint than Falwell was. Playing the Jerry Falwell card does not make Wright's statements any less troubling.

"And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February."

Which has nothing to do with anything.

"And that could not only destroy the Obama campaign, it could set back racial relations in this nation by 20 years."

I would argue that the "vote Obama or you are racist" undertones will have a much more pernicious effect in this regard. Yelling "RACISM" over and over will have a cry-wolf affect, wherein real racism is ignored.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 5:27 PM

I also watched Wright's interview with Moyers, and found it fresh and inspiring. Reconciliation is badly needed in our country and world, and pastors, theologians, and lay people of faith would do well to rise to this challenge. I would love to see some prominent faith leaders (Martin Marty is a good start) stand up and say "We agree" with Rev Wright's desire to effect reconciliation, "We repent" for the things we've done (and we've all done them) that have been hurtful, and "We reach out" to our brothers and sisters in faith, with whom we can partner to move God's ideal of reconciliation into the world. Red Letter Christians, how about it?

Posted by: jen | April 28, 2008 5:45 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

But intent has to be measured. As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, but you can't say the same for Wright, who literally had nothing to gain by saying in public some of the same statements that black folks for decades have been saying in private. You should worry about that part.

How do you know he gained nothing by that? The man got a lot of attention, built up a huge congregation, and now retired to a nice house in a very tony gated community. This isn't your average quiet, humble parson we're talking about here.

And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February.

Looks to me like he's having a pretty active retirement.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 5:54 PM

Not to defend Falwell -- but Falwell really did believe homosexuality is a sin that we would be judged for -- he actually had lists of sins he deeply believed would be our undoing as a nation. He also believed that we have to nationally obey God's law -- in order to make Christ lord of all.

Falwell recieved death threats--you can google it -- it's in his FBI file. I know Dobson did when he started his anti-pronography stuff. Unfortunately, it's very hard to be in the public stand against anything today and not have someone write you a death threat.

Posted by: frankie | April 28, 2008 6:04 PM

I certainly got a whitewashed version of history in high school, but it was an Appalacian school. When I went college in California I had excellent history classes that gave the whole story.

Posted by: Oak | April 28, 2008 6:06 PM

Not to defend Falwell -- but Falwell really did believe homosexuality is a sin that we would be judged for -- he actually had lists of sins he deeply believed would be our undoing as a nation. He also believed that we have to nationally obey God's law -- in order to make Christ lord of all.

The difference, however, is that he exploited the Scripture for the sake of political power, in which Wright has no interest (if that were the case he would have shut up and embraced his former parishioner). Let's also never forget that Falwell actually partnered with non-believers in the process, thus subverting the spiritual goals he espoused. The same thing with Dobson.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 6:20 PM

Kevin,

I have gone to that church only a couple of time so we probably have never met. You might know my roomates ben, will, and corey.

Posted by: DITE | April 28, 2008 6:32 PM

I said:

"If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue."

Carl Copas said:

"Because there is no history to lend it any credibility. Tuskegee study of untreated syphillis, anyone? Do I believe that AIDS is part of a governmental plot to commit genocide against African Americans? Not for a nanosecond. Do I understand why someone of Pastor Wright's generation believes such? Of course."

Carl, I think you are entirely missing my point. Its not the specific charge, that the government created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against African-Americans, that I am talking about.

If a white pastor in a so-called Christian identity church said something that played to the paranoia of his congregants, for instance, if he talked about a conspiracy by gays, or Jews, or African-Americans, or a conspiracy by the government to take away guns from white people, I don't think you would hesitate for a second to call him a racist demagogue. And you would be right.

But when Wright says something which is, in my opinion, morally just as bad, some well-intentioned people can't seem to bring themselves to take his words seriously.

I do take Wright's words seriously, and I think those words are dangerous.

Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Jeremiah Wright is a very well educated man of some talent and gifting. He is eloquent and thought provoking. He gave better in response to his critics than he got, in the way of reasoned argument. He backed up his statements with references to other well educated and well reasoned individuals who are also gifted and who, as far as I can tell, are credible people.

What more could you ask for?

Wolverine, lots of people believe the left brain right brain thing and as a musician I found his thinking on this to be fun, not stupid, and very entertaining. From what I could tell his audience agreed.

I had questions about why Senator Obama stayed in his church after I heard the sound bites of Rev. Wright's sermon. After hearing the whole sermon I was much less concerned. After hearing Rev. Wright's NAACP speech I understand completely why Senator Obama stayed.
This man thinks! He challenges others to think, He challenges his people to action, He challenges preconceived ideas, he supports his people with God's word, with educated stands, and with insight into the culture.
And he is an ex-Marine! I like that about him.

Anyone who thinks this guy is un-american or un-christian is just looking for an excuse.

Wright is an all around good guy, worth admiring, even if you don't agree with everything he says. If I were a young man again, and was once more in need of an older mentor, I could do a lot worse than learning from a man like him.
By the way I was raised Southern Baptist, discipled and educated as a Plymouth Brethren. I own the right to call myself theologically conservative

Posted by: wayne | April 28, 2008 7:10 PM

Alicia
Carl is right. What you are not seeing is that the white supremacist would lack real historical fact that would make his paranoid myth understandable.
Unfortunately the African American has many real facts to lend credence to any conspiracy theory they might entertain about us white guys.
So the white guy would be dismissed easily and should be, but the African American should be given some latitude of understanding.

It's OJ Simpson all over again. If your white he's guilty. If your not, well it is a lot easier to think he was framed. If you're like me, a white guy who ran afoul of Southern Cal policemen in my youth, you might think he was guilty and the cops still tried to frame him.

Posted by: wayne | April 28, 2008 7:46 PM

Hey! You need to get that supermarket checkout booklet, "How to Understand What Your Cat Is Telling You."

"HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell,"

Posted by: Sylvia's Cat | April 28, 2008 8:00 PM

Moyers did NOT conduct an interview with Wright. Instead, he assisted Wright in portraying himself sympathetically by asking no hardball questions and avoiding follow-through on Wright's comments (e.g., Wright speaks only "pastorally" versus Obama who speaks "politically"). And if Wright is so pastoral and cares about his flock, especially those he said lost loved ones on 9/11, why did he insist on telling them the "chickens had come home to roost"? Most compassionate.

Posted by: judithod | April 28, 2008 8:35 PM

Alicia writes: "For me, as someone who spent years to the left of center, Wright hits the 'left wing hyprocisy and mendacity is just as bad as right wing hypocrisy and mendacity.'"

Reminds me of Utah Phillips' quip: "The difference between a liberal and a conservative is, a liberal will hang you from a lower branch."

The thread of truth seems to be, if one has been radicallized by life's experiences, then there doesn't seem to be that much difference between your would-be "friends" and those who truly mean you harm.

So, I understand the sentiment and that one may come by it honestly. But I don't have to embrace it.

Posted by: Tem | April 28, 2008 9:35 PM

Rev. Staples,

Most scientist who have studied the subject have reached the conclusion that HIV is the descendant of a simian retrovirus that crossed over into the human population of Africa during the first half of the 20th century.

The first confirmed cases of AIDS date back to the late 1950s. It was at roughly this time that the structure of DNA and the process of genetic duplication were determined. Without this knowledge genetic manipulation would be practically unimaginable. Consequently it is very unlikely that HIV was engineered by the US government or any other human agency.

I personally do not have any specialized knowledge in this field, but then again I'm not accusing anyone of creating the HIV virus to commit a crime against humanity.

Since Rev. Wright is making this accusation, you might want to ask him for his evidence, and also why his word should be accepted above that of the majority of researchers and doctors who are studying HIV or treating AIDS.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 9:57 PM

Well, I remember first hearing the rumor that HIV was created in a government laboratory back in 1986. At that time, a lot of people believed that the target was gays, not blacks. Those of you who are old enough will remember that in the early days of AIDS, it was a very mysterious disease unlike any other in previous experience, and that its cause was not even identified until 1985. I remember seeing a well-known doctor quoted as saying that he wouldn't be using public telephones (remember those?) until the etiology of the disease was better understood: and that was *after* the identification of the HIV virus.

At the time, when we had a government that was reluctant to invest in AIDS research because it affected only a small, "deviant" segment of the population, I actually found the idea plausible enough that I asked a friend who was a graduate student in genetics about it. She assured me that the virus was sufficiently complicated that it could not possibly have been created in a laboratory, even with the most sophisticated equipment then available. I shared this with another straight, white friend and I remember that we both felt relieved, since the alternative was to believe that we lived in something several degrees worse than a jungle.

So, I am not trying to give the viral theory any credibility. I also think O. J. Simpson was guilty. However, I also think we're missing the real issue. A majority of blacks apparently do find the "HIV was created by the government" theory plausible. Surveys have also shown that a similar majority believe that Hillary Clinton is trying to ruin Obama's candidacy so that she will be poised to run again in 2012. Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why?

When our nation is sufficiently polarized that different groups can hold to what are essentially alternate and incompatible views of reality, isn't there a problem that calls for more radical rethinking on both sides that anything I've seen proposed here so far?

Wolverine, I understand your indignation, but aren't you even curious to know why so many people from such a different sector of society apparently hold to beliefs that you find laughable? If you are, maybe we can have a real dialogue.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 10:29 PM

"We can be friends with people who are different than us."

As long as they are liberal-progressive democrats. All others are just pathetic gun toting, religion clutching, uneducated, rednecks. Obama's mentor has been quite the influential role model.

Posted by: Whites are people too | April 28, 2008 10:43 PM

"Sounds like the human condition to me."

Indeed. That was my point.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 10:52 PM

Another nonymous wrote:

Wolverine, I understand your indignation, but aren't you even curious to know why so many people from such a different sector of society apparently hold to beliefs that you find laughable? If you are, maybe we can have a real dialogue.

Sort of. I can hazard a guess at part of it: the experience of racism stratching over hundreds of years: slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, serious injustices and petty slights beyond counting. Now toss in the notorious and fairly well-documented Tuskegee Experiment. Stir and let simmer.

What I find a bit more puzzling is that a well-educated, intelligent African-American man, presumably motivated by the best interests of the African-American community and possessed of the Holy Spirit, would seize upon this particular theory without reflection and with little in the way of proof.

But what's really puzzling is why nobody at Sojourners, supposedly a thoughtful Christian publication, would ask Rev. Wright an obvious question: Are You Sure This Is How It Happened?

I never memorized the Ten Commandments, but I'm pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor" is one of them. I'm also pretty sure that spreading rumours and false accusations is frowned upon in the New Testament as well.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that if Jesus heard someone make a false accusation -- even out of deep hurt and genuine conviction -- at some point he'd stand up and clear the air. Depending on the details he might be patient and pick his time to minimize embarassment to the accuser, but he wouldn't let a false charge hang out there forever, there are just too many real sins and reconciliation is tough enough with those.

I'm still waiting for Sojo to step up and clear the air with Rev. Wright and his followers.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 11:04 PM

Wolverine -

All right; well stated. I'm also pretty sure Jesus would say that, while it is important to call out somebody bearing false witness, it's equally important to ask if that person might actually believe what he's saying, and if so, why.

I actually don't think Wright believes he is spreading a false rumor, and I find that fascinating, horrifying and, ultimately, sobering. Hence, I want to know more, and I'm far more interested in that than I am in clearing the air.

So I would certainly ask Wright that question if I had the chance. And then I would wait to hear what he said.

Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 11:19 PM

"What if you had to pick just one?"
You nailed it. It's about nationalism is it not?
But to answer the question...

Christian

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 11:28 PM

I think what's being left out of the Rev. Wright hub-bub is the exact effect these rants are likely to have on the black community. If he is indeed representative of pastors of black churches everywhere, as Rick and others say, then we have much to be worried about. The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny. This is the unfortunate consequence of much of the discussion on race that takes place these days--discussion that Obama has implicitly rejected on different occasions, btw (which is why Wright has been so damaging to him).

It is a much studied truth about human nature that people make moral decisions based on how they see themselves in relation to their community. These sermons that are being commented upon only serve to increase the marginalization of many in the black community who feel that, since they aren't a part of mainstream society, they don't have to abide by its rules. These things have consequences.

Posted by: jesse | April 28, 2008 11:41 PM

Jesse said:
If he is indeed representative of pastors of black churches everywhere, as Rick and others say, then we have much to be worried about. The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny.

Me:
Rick and others like myself say he represents a very old tradition that is true of his generation. The black church is not monolithic. Just look at black conservative pastors on that score. But his message is not what you say it is. His message is try, achieve, deal with your own crap but don't ignore racism and when it raises it's ugly head remember you are with God and he is with you therefore you can accomplish anything.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 11:53 PM

Rev Wright just made complete fools out of almost everyone, the mainstream media and barack obama most especially. The man has guts, intellectual honesty, a brilliant grasp on biblical history, fearlessness, and what is scariest of all, a prophetic voice. while i will still support obama, i have lost a bit of respect for him in distancing himself from wright rather than having the guts to stand with this man of character and conviction (the candidates attacking him are in need of considerable more repentance). but, he is a politician, and i suspect the obvious calculation was made that he would never be president because americans would NEVER take the time to truly hear wright and would NEVER have the courage to look itself soberly in the mirror and see its glaring flaws. and the mainstream media...good lord, what a joke. the anointed spokesperson for the national press club was asking questions about snippets of a sermon she had not listened to in its entirety. no, it is not a joke, it is shameful, these torchbearers of this touchstone of democracy (the free press), what lousy stewards, what prostitutes! which brings it back around to the consuming public and our impoverished values of paying for and wallowing in this sensationalistic sewage rather than demanding and pursuing virtue, some semblance of thoughtfulness and truth through this medium. my hat's off to jeremiah wright. i pray for more sunday nights like that on cnn.

Posted by: nad2 | April 29, 2008 12:22 AM

Thanks Diana, for that article. It is thus far, the most fair one I have read. I am not African American, but I am glad that Wright came out to defend this mischaracterization of his message. I am surprised that a lot of Christians still don't get him, my friends included. Although the media has let him speak, they are still reluctant to fully backpedal from their initial caricature of this man as a kook ("wackadoodle")and separatist, and Obama by association.

There were certainly things I would rather he not have said- ie about the Clintons and the AIDS virus. However, the majority of the clips were completely misrepresented for anyone that has heard his entire sermons, interviews and understands prophetic scripture and the context of the sermons. He is wrong about the AIDS virus, but he is right about a lot of other things. I think a lot of Americans are blind the the effects of deliberate government foreign and domestic policy that have perpetuated injustice and suffering on certain groups of people. That is not to take away from good foreign policy and actions. But you would have to be blind or miseducated to not see this, and understand how these would have been an affront to God. As he reminded us, our faith and allegiance is not to a certain govt., but to God who does not change.

As far as the government-AIDS, drugs theory, one can see where these come from. Lay people have suspected the government hand often by loose association. Yes, there is evidence that during the cold war the CIA cultivated some dubious drug related alliances in the name of national security. The Tuskegee experiments were well known to Blacks. Dont forget, we used Biological weapons in Vietnam and sanctioned a MD company to help Saddam build his program. But no, I don't believe they introduced drugs into the inner city or created the AIDS virus, inspite of the book by Dr. Leonard Horowitz who supposedly went to the same school of public health I did. But many blacks, Haitians etc still suspect the U.S government behind the AIDS crisis.

My hope is that the Christian community helps dispel some of these unfair attacks. He may be wrong about some things, but for the most important parts, he is right. I don't think Obama needs to distance himself, but this is politics because most of the public still doesn't get the complete picture. Sorry if I've taken too much space.

Posted by: Alex | April 29, 2008 12:52 AM

Jesse,

If anything, you're understating the problem.

How much more difficult is it to reconcile with someone who blames you for something that just didn't happen? Even if you confess all your faults, they stand there demanding one more apology, one that you honestly cannot make.

This is no small thing: if Rev. Wright's accusation were true we would be talking about a crime that would be up there with the holocaust or slavery itself -- but more recent. This is not the sort of crime one forgives easily.

But neither could the US confess something this monstrous and call it a little white lie told for the sake of reconciliation. Validating a lie like this might throw off legitimate research into the source of and cure for AIDS. And the desire for retribution after such an "admission" would be impossible to ignore. (Especially since the "crime" would be recent enough that many of those directly involved might still be alive -- assuming any of it really happened.) Since nobody is guilty of engineering the virus, we are bound to end up punishing innocent people.

Meanwhile the current government gets zero credit among African Americans for a commitment to treat and prevent AIDS worldwide that it has actually made and largely kept. How in the name of God does any of this promote racial harmony, or even advance any legitimate interests of African Americans?

As long as this thing is hanging out there, racial reconciliation is impossible. The accusation is too grotesque, the proof is utterly lacking so far, but so many people believe it anyway.

If Sojo were truly interested in racial reconciliation, they would be calling on Rev. Wright and his fellow conspiracy theorists to either show their proof or drop their accusations.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | April 29, 2008 1:11 AM

Amen nad2!!!!
I watched the Moyers interview and am appalled by the treatment that the press has given Wright. He is a committed Christian man who has given his life to helping the poor, the downtrodden, the abused, and the oppressed. I am white, and a Methodist, but when I heard some of the sermons that Wright preached from which the press has taken their sound bytes, I thought to myself, "that's the message of scripture!" Conspiracy theories aside, how can any well educated Christian find fault in his central theology?
Are we so easily manipulated by the press that a couple of out of context sound bytes can overshadow a man's life work of love, charity, and reconciliation? He doesn't preach hatred! Take some time to listen to his sermons.

And since when did having a friendship with someone mean that you agree with them? I have lots of friends who are different from me. I'm no big fan of Farakhan, but the man has done a great deal of good for a lot of people. Can't a man recognize that without being accused of having the same belief system?

Posted by: bpharry | April 29, 2008 2:31 AM

The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny.

I heard that message from a secular father when I was growing up in the 1970s. This is much bigger than any church.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 8:49 AM

openeyes wrote: "Unmeasured opinions chosen with minimal reflection are a disadvantage for those who hold them and for their aduiences, too."

I like that there!!!!!

In my opiinion, Obama absent the Wright fiasco would be simply another American man trying to run for the highest office in the land without evoking negative dialog on issues such as race.

This entire "ugly" sidebar which distracts so many from the fundamental process of electing our leaders is unfortunate to say the least. As evidenced in the strings of comments that are attached to each Rev. Wright article written here over the past few months it is difficult for many to have open and frank conversations about the history and present status of racial relations in the U.S. without over-the-top emotions getting the better part.

Obama can help the healing process for many in this area by simply reaching the position of Presidency - showing that for the majority we have moved from the mindsets of the past and have grasped whole-heartedly the basic truth in the statement that all men are created equal.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 29, 2008 9:50 AM

Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?

Let's go one step further -- if "faith seeking understanding" is, in fact, really the clarion call for Christians of every stripe and tribe. Let's critique the historical, exegetical, cultural, sociological angles of Liberation Theology -- it's initial roots in Latin America, syncretistic links with Marxist Strands, the Catholic Church's response to it, etc.

Just as fairly, we can continue critique the manipulated fundamentalism of the "right-wing" moralism of [fill in the blank),

Posted by: JayGime | April 29, 2008 10:38 AM

"Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?"

We don't have to do that, because he affirmed his positions in light of questions from the Press Club. He affirmed that America got what it deserved on 9/11 and that we started the AIDS virus. He believes those things. Responding to him in due course by denouncing him is not "bashing" in the least.

Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2008 10:49 AM

"Obama can help the healing process for many in this area by simply reaching the position of Presidency - showing that for the majority we have moved from the mindsets of the past and have grasped whole-heartedly the basic truth in the statement that all men are created equal."

See, this is what irks me about the whole deal. Obama's pastor says a bunch of nutty things. Since Obama is running for office, he has to address them, as any candidate would.

But suddenly, he makes this about race difference. People are leery of Wright because he is black, which is indicative of a racial divide. The only way to bridge that divide? Elect Barack Obama. How convenient.

Examine Obama on the merits, because if he is elected and performs poorly, the racial divide will be wider than ever.

"what a joke. the anointed spokesperson for the national press club was asking questions about snippets of a sermon she had not listened to in its entirety."

And for this, society is dismissed as a den of prostitution? Please. When a pastor says something egregious, it is not inappropriate to ask him about it, thereby giving him an opportunity to provide the proper context.

Nobody held a gun to Wright's head and forced him to head to the press club. The idea that a member of the press is a scoundrel for asking questions of someone who appears AT THE PRESS CLUB is absurd.

"What's the difference between what they and Wright say and what Falwell said?"

In the instance of your pastors, New Orleans was unquestionably decadent. It is impossible to be a Christian and not consider New Orleans to be decadent. I disagree with the theological premise that the hurricane was God's judgment for anything, but that is far less concerning that Wright's statements about America inventing the AIDS virus.

"You can't defend Wright's statements AND argue that the man who repeatedly rejects his statements and distances himself from his spiritual mentor is a new kind of politician."

Well, clearly they can, because they are doing so. What you mean to say is that they cannot do so credibly, and you are correct.

"America does not need God to damn it."

Really? Who else has the authority?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 29, 2008 11:46 AM

"I deplore Wright's comments not because he's black, but because he is simply wrong" Tim

ME: Wrong about what Tim? He has said more than one thing. He is likely wrong about alot of things. What's the point?

Wolverine: After several months, brother, you lose me on your elevation of Wright's HIV conspiracy theory to some level of a central crime against humanity. Would it not be simpler to either let it go (preachers wade into topics every Sunday in their examples/illustrations to which they are unqualified to speak); or else hear it substantively within context?

I appreciate D.E.Sharps point about this being an ugly sidebar. I have very mixed feelings.

Dr. Wright does reflect a generation that is different than Obama. The world has changed. Obama is very symbolic. He is not your historic negro, Black man, African-American, civil rights leader, white man, red-blooded American, thoroughbred protestant, etc. His bloodline, experience, heritage, culture---is all over the map. And he may be President of the US.

The world has changed. Did you notice?

It is not Dr. Wright's, nor Strom Thurmond's world.

The United States is on a path somewhere between the old British Empire and the Soviet Empire. We are big and blind; with big guns; in debt to the world, impoverished in spirt, second-class in many regards. The culture is past-Christian--i.e. much of it does not even remember.

And we are arguing racial issues the church, even it its entrenched sinfulness and duplicity, should have resolved 150 years ago.

By not seeing Black people, and resisting the gift of prophetic Black pulpits, we have failed to see the world. This historic sin absolutely wounded Gods purposes in and through this nation.

It has given the Enemy a massive stronghold through which he kills, steals and destroys from the Kingdom every day---literally.

Those who think they have found a wonderful weapon against Obama in a few Wright soundbites could well win the day. And they will have their reward. They will have won the political battle of the day. And they will turn off the lights and go to bed. And wonder why they can't govern a world that has changed.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 29, 2008 11:53 AM

Reverend Wright Advocates Separate but Equal at NAACP Dinner to Thunderous Applause – “Different is NOT Deficient”

http://lawconinsurance.blogspot.com/2008/04/reverend-wright-advocates-separate-but.html

“A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races-a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races” the Plessy v. Ferguson majority opinion enshired in law that different is not deficient

Posted by: Lawyer Consolidation Insurance | April 29, 2008 12:40 PM

There are major differences between Rev Wright's sermon and other referenced statements, such as Katernia happened because of sin. Wright was condemning the American government, not the people. In his G** D** sermon he went through various governments. He praised some Presidents: Truman desegregating the mililtary, "We had a friend in Bill Clinton."

The point of the sermon was not killing innocent people as revenge for 9/11. The United Methodist Church wrote a letter to Bush in Oct 2002 that stated several reasons Bush should not attack Iraq, including there was no evidence that Iraq had mass weapons of destruction pointed at the US or any country. They urged Bush to work with France in a project to verify the mass weapons of destruction.

I have been defending Rev Wright by trying to explain his sermon to my white friends. I thought the Bill Moyer interview was going to be helpful.

The issue for me was his Monday speech. His message was lost when he became flippant and "appreared" to be an angry man out for revenge on Obama, which destroys the image of a Christian.

Even before the Moyer interview was aired the sound bites were "Did Obama lie about rejecting Wright's words?" For Wright to repeat the statement in even greater detail on Monday that Obama was another liar politician only provided reason for people to reject Obama.

Obama has said some of the things he rejects from Wright's sermons. He said Wright was too much in the past and needed to also give more acknowledgement to the good things done by Americans. Obama also said he did not live through the things Wright experienced-that he benefited from the people like Wright and Martin Luther King that fought the "big" fights.

Obama's red/blue states, black/white/etc speeches of reconcilation was one of the major reasons for his appeal. Although Wright is correct about many things, much of what he said on Monday hurts Obama's major appeal - let's move forward, turn the page, fight big business making big money while most of us struggle.

Posted by: Linda | April 29, 2008 1:44 PM

carl: "And that could not only destroy the Obama campaign, it could set back racial relations in this nation by 20 years."

kevin s: "I would argue that the 'vote Obama or you are racist' undertones will have a much more pernicious effect in this regard. Yelling 'RACISM' over and over will have a cry-wolf affect, wherein real racism is ignored."

carl: Not what I meant, tho I put it badly. If Obama loses the nomination because of Wright, I predict that a large segment of the African American community will be even further alienated from U.S. politics. Would be interesting to hear what Payshun and Rick have to say about this.

Alicia: "If a white pastor in a so-called Christian identity church said something that played to the paranoia of his congregants, for instance, if he talked about a conspiracy by gays . . . I don't think you would hesitate for a second to call him a racist demagogue. And you would be right."

White pastors in evangelical churches speak every week about "a conspiracy by gays." Plus, I hear it on conservative Christian radio talk shows every time I'm foolish enough to turn them on.

This whole discussion is very disturbing. The differences in perceptions are huge, and given the adamancy with which so many of the opinions are held doesn't bode well for a healthy dialog, let alone reconciliation.

Posted by: carl copas | April 29, 2008 1:54 PM

Odin--If you are interested in reconciliation Payshun will hear it in the content of your post.

Why don't you try it?

I can answer Wolverine's "Wright lies about HIV" argument 100 times. I can explain it so it makes sense 50 of those times; and apologize and agree the unproven allegation there was not a conspiracy 50 times. And ask we move on. And when it comes back up the first line will be "Wright lies about HIV."

That is non-interest in reconciliation.

Dr. Jeremiah Wright, and scads like him, have preached for decades. The agenda is Obama, not Wright.

Obama can be hurt in the mind of racists by making him "too Black." Wright is the ticket.

White Evangelicals (and others) are not angry because JW says "Damn" or repeats conspiracy theories. It is because we cannot hear a critique of our racism.

I flipped on Denis Prager a couple minutes ago for 30 seconds. He was ridiculing Wright talking about the Middle East as part of Africa and Jesus being Black.

That Afrocentrism is about countering a lie that Jesus is White and the Middle East is part of Europe. We don't have trouble with a European Jesus on the walls of our churches holding a lamb.

Jeremiah Wright is a critique--and we don't like it because we are part of a dominant culture that very naturally thinks of ourselves as the norm--which includes being inclusive and non-racist.

But our whiteness was only the product of defining others as not-white.

So when someone confronts the racist lie of white supremecy with a black Jesus--we suddenly have our toes stepped on.

At age 19 I was in my first experience coaching a children's basketball team of all African American children. I grew up in an all-white county. I walked into the school locker room and had an encounter with a young Black man from a community agency far more radical than Jeremiah Wright. He yelled at me and burned me from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet about what I was doing there.

I don't know why I had the grace to listen. I assume it was God's gift because I know there is nothing within me to prompt my mouth being shut.

To this day, I consider most of what he said to be wrong. The Black community is not endowed with a significatly different level of wisdom and character than any other community. But I believe our calling is to make peace and express the love of Jesus in such a way we can learn to walk in unity. If we can't listen we can't get anywhere.

We are not offended by a Black Jesus--we are offended because Dr. Wright wants to take our White Jesus away; and we like our White Jesus very much; thank you.

I would heartily agree with all who would simply want to walk in love while seeking the Kingdom. When we give up