Faux News Lied About Wright

[Nbadan]

Yes, Faux News took Jeremiah Wright's word out of context...the man does not hate white people, nor does he hate America....Faux News should be banned...


QOdlnzkeoyQ

[Wild Cobra]

It's just part of giving balance Dan.

Any time a republican or white's work can be misconstrued to be a racist remark, it is reported to death. This is just balance. Showing the blacks what us whites have to deal with.

It has also been well reported by Fox and conservative programming he was talking about the past sins. Still, his words do foster hatred rather than love. There is no defense of him, nor for Obama, calling this man a "mentor."

The apparent truth is that Obama either feels the same way, or simply used the powerful black message of the church for political gain. Either way, it shows a side of Obama that wasn't well known before.

FYI. I've even called him a racist, however, nobody called me on my misuse of the word. Truth is, few people know the subtle differences between prejudice, racism, racialism, bigotry, etc.

Now remember how the liberals want to legislate hate crimes. "If it APPEARS to be hateful" is a common phrase. Such idiocy is why conservative reject so-called equal rights legislation. Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. Now consider this. Regardless what the verbatim and meaning of Wright's words, he appears to be a racist. What's wrong with us conservatives turning around liberal definitions and using them against them?

[some_user86]

It's just part of giving balance Dan.

Any time a republican or white's work can be misconstrued to be a racist remark, it is reported to death. This is just balance. Showing the blacks what us whites have to deal with.

It has also been well reported by Fox and conservative programming he was talking about the past sins. Still, his words do foster hatred rather than love. There is no defense of him, nor for Obama, calling this man a "mentor."

The apparent truth is that Obama either feels the same way, or simply used the powerful black message of the church for political gain. Either way, it shows a side of Obama that wasn't well known before.

FYI. I've even called him a racist, however, nobody called me on my misuse of the word. Truth is, few people know the subtle differences between prejudice, racism, racialism, bigotry, etc.

Now remember how the liberals want to legislate hate crimes. "If it APPEARS to be hateful" is a common phrase. Such idiocy is why conservative reject so-called equal rights legislation. Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. Now consider this. Regardless what the verbatim and meaning of Wright's words, he appears to be a racist. What's wrong with us conservatives turning around liberal definitions and using them against them?

The shoe has to fit, WC. It doesn't here.

[Nbadan]

Nice.....but the question is can W.C. spot the real racists?

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers
Cenk Uygur


Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.


Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.

John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

I'm willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It's one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims -- that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America -- it's another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.

I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It's easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.

If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of "respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church."

But one thing is indisputable -- the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine -- and hardly a peep.

If the disparity in coverage isn't racist, then what is it?

Huffington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/different-standards-for-b_b_92337.html)

[Wild Cobra]

Nice.....but the question is can W.C. spot the real racists?

Dan, the racist is the one who believes his race is superior than others. Therefore, only the Mormon past ban on blacks, and some of the other religious points are racist.

Several of the points you brought up are allegations rather than fact, and if you remember, I have always opposed "organized religion."

Wrights points are not racist, but are racial. They are also hateful and bigoted. He is the leader of a hate group under the guise of a church. There is no place for these types of remarks in Christianity. At least the Mormon view isn't based on hate, but on a particular biblical interpretation, as ignorant as it is. Ignorance isn't as dangerous as hate speech.

All of the below are forms of bigotry, how many of you all fit at least one category? I removed some less common ones to reduce the size:

Anti-Americanism
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Polish sentiment
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Semitism
Chauvinism
Classism
Discrimination
Hate group
Homophobia
Islamophobia
Misandry
Misogyny
Narcissism
Nazism
Racism
Religious persecution
Religious intolerance
Reverse Discrimination
Scientology
Sectarianism
Sexism
Stereotype
Supremacism
Xenophobia

Now you have to remember. The only reason why Wright is getting so much attention is because he was Obama's mentor for 20 years. It is rightfully assumed that this mans bigoted viewpoints are engrained into Obama. The mention of Giuliani's priest isn't so relevant. Has he claimed him to be a mentor? Are the facts complete? The words in the article are "accused" therefore there is no verdict. Wright's words are very clear. He speaks out against America as an oppressor.

[Nbadan]

The Media Needs to Fess Up to Its Mess and Its Responsibility: Time for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Take a Look


Yesterday's speech by Barack Obama was extraordinary. Yet there are those who believe it will cost Obama the presidency, if not the nomination. And if the media continues to have its way, I fear it will.

In my 20 years in political life I have never quite seen, much less read, a speech by a political figure less calculated to please or pander. It was a tour de force in passion, but passion from within not designed to evoke passion from without. It was somber, uplifting, scolding, challenging, and defiant, all at the same time.

As a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, a federal agency whose mission in recent years has been largely forgotten (if news coverage of these issues is any measure), it was an eye-opening moment not only about the future of our politics, but about the need to sternly examine the role of the 4th estate in helping achieve "a more perfect union."

In its 50 year history the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has never questioned the role of the news media on the journalistic equivalent of the who, what, where, why, when, and how in terms of choosing to report on race. We have questioned, sometimes under subpoena, officials partaking in corrupt voter schemes; officials out of compliance with the mandates of Brown and federal civil rights laws. But never, in our 50 years, have we asked the media what they believe their role has been and continues to be in shaping the entire question of race in this country for their audience, the American people.

Make no mistake; race was always the elephant in the room in American politics. And in this election, it is a mega-elephant. Until Obama's candidacy became viable, it was easy to ignore, pretend that it wasn't there, a non-factor until he became a factor. Then slowly, inexorably, perhaps even spurred on by parodies on "SNL", the media began to rise up and chip away at him on issues or race. News media began worrying about the "racial divide," exit polls tracked black-brown-white voting patterns, and experts were brought in to analyze what it all meant.

Now how the media covers race is the 45-foot long raptor sitting next to the elephant in the room. Will the raptor simply slash away at the elephant for the political equivalent of a cage match? Will there be thoughtful discussion, or will You Tube tapes of Pastor Wright available to serve as "video wallpaper" simply be used to re-fuel the issue on slow news days?

It's quite a crowded and noisy room. And the today's media provides all the filters.

As we see in the few Commission hearings that the Bush administration wishes wouldn't happen, race is, and continues to be, an issue that will not go away. Any understanding of the plight of migrant field hands, sweatshop workers, and drop-out rates of inner-city kids, continuing efforts to suppress minority voting, and the growing racial and class divide between the boardrooms and the mailroom shows just how much our nation has failed in achieving a truly "equal" society. But don't just trust my word on this. A quick perusal of the blog comments made in reaction to Obama's speech is enough to validate the notion that racism is alive and well in our country.

But Obama is running for President, and the cardinal rule of Presidential politics is that victory is an additive, not subtractive process, and race is a four-letter word that loses votes. Yet, despite this maxim, his speech was not overtly calculated to stop white flight from his campaign. There were no pandering lines, such as "I am not, and never will be, a card-carrying Muslim" or "Pastor Wright is no longer a friend, I reject his support, and I hope that the devil carries him away." To the contrary, Obama stayed true to his message of inclusiveness. More importantly -- and perhaps most dangerously -- Obama challenged the American public about his candidacy, and essentially said, "I'm black, you can get over it and join me because many others have voted for me because I'm the best leader for America, or you can choose not to get over it and vote against me because I'm black. You can choose to listen to me and understand that who I am, what I am, is part of the black American experience, but it does not solely define what I stand for and what I want to accomplish for America. Or, because I'm black, you can tune me out. Now let me tell you what I want to do for America, and let your hand on the "mute" button determine whether you have an open or closed mind."

That is what made this speech an extraordinary profile in courage and relegates people like Pennsylvania Governor Rendell (who said that 5% of his victory over Lynn Swann was attributable to people "whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate") to, well, just a profile.

Ultimately the success of this speech will be measured by whether Obama wins or loses, whether he is able to move on and get his message out or whether he his opponents and the media succeed in miring him in the issue of race. As he said in his speech, "[w]e can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism . . . . Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time."

As noted, I think it is time for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to hold a first hearing on the role of the media with respect to race relations, coverage of race, and, ultimately, its responsibility on the issue of race.

I ask this because the power of the press is still undeniably powerful. Publishers, editors, and advertisers decide how many minutes or column inches, whether it is buried on page A-25 or after the sports break. Polls show that white voters had more definite negative feelings about Obama immediately after the weekend Pastor Wright double features that ran all over the media. Katrina victims or the Jena 6 seem to get less coverage than OJ's latest Vegas adventures.

In the larger context of an African American presidential candidate, race becomes the chum for conflict to whip news desks into a frenzy. It makes one wonder whether if Governor Rendell were black, would his statement on white voters have gone as unnoticed as it has by the national media? Race, in this election more than any in my memory, seems to be the "gotcha" factor that creates news leads.

Perhaps the news media can realize that the quality of the candidate should be judged by his words, and his positions. Perhaps the news media can also say that on the issue of covering this Presidential election with a race angle - "not this time." Ultimately, the hearts of individual Americans will decide that issue. Does the media need to fan the flames with endless talking heads and extremists on all sides who don't represent the average American?

Dare I believe in the audacity of hope on this topic?

Huff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-yaki/the-media-needs-to-fess-u_b_92376.html)

[some_user86]

Dan, the racist is the one who believes his race is superior than others. Therefore, only the Mormon past ban on blacks, and some of the other religious points are racist.

Several of the points you brought up are allegations rather than fact, and if you remember, I have always opposed "organized religion."

Wrights points are not racist, but are racial. They are also hateful and bigoted. He is the leader of a hate group under the guise of a church. There is no place for these types of remarks in Christianity. At least the Mormon view isn't based on hate, but on a particular biblical interpretation, as ignorant as it is. Ignorance isn't as dangerous as hate speech.

All of the below are forms of bigotry, how many of you all fit at least one category? I removed some less common ones to reduce the size:

Anti-Americanism
Anti-Catholicism
Anti-Mormonism
Anti-Polish sentiment
Anti-Protestantism
Anti-Semitism
Chauvinism
Classism
Discrimination
Hate group
Homophobia
Islamophobia
Misandry
Misogyny
Narcissism
Nazism
Racism
Religious persecution
Religious intolerance
Reverse Discrimination
Scientology
Sectarianism
Sexism
Stereotype
Supremacism
Xenophobia

Now you have to remember. The only reason why Wright is getting so much attention is because he was Obama's mentor for 20 years. It is rightfully assumed that this mans bigoted viewpoints are engrained into Obama. The mention of Giuliani's priest isn't so relevant. Has he claimed him to be a mentor? Are the facts complete? The words in the article are "accused" therefore there is no verdict. Wright's words are very clear. He speaks out against America as an oppressor.

How are Wright's comments classified as hate speech or bigotry?

[Nbadan]

Anyone who watches the full video can see for themselves that Wright was speaking about a white guest on FAUX News, paraphrasing if you will, the absurdity of the position the guests and hosts were taking....

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who watches the full video can see for themselves that Wright was speaking about a white guest on FAUX News, paraphrasing if you will, the absurdity of the position the guests and hosts were taking....
Problem is Dan, that is one clip of many. Have you reviewed all the different clips?

This man clearly hates!

[Dre_7]

Wow. Watching the sermon for longer than the few seconds they show on TV makes it much more clear as to what Pastor Wright was saying.

FOX fucked up with that clip. Completely out of context.

[Wild Cobra]

How are Wright's comments classified as hate speech or bigotry?
You haven't seen very many, have you.

That clip is very tame compared to some of his other ones. If you're interested, you can find them. I have better things to do than find links for them.

[jochhejaam]

his speech was not overtly calculated to stop white flight from his campaign. There were no pandering lines, such as "I am not, and never will be, a card-carrying Muslim" or "Pastor Wright is no longer a friend, I reject his support, and I hope that the devil carries him away."
Yaki lost me with that hyperbole.

If you want to keep an audience, keep it real.

[Doc Jerome]

Like I said. Rev. Wright does not teach the Gospel of hate. Fox news does. All other media outlets are not news leaders, they are ratings seekers.

Those who know, are in the know. Those who do not, react and follow irrationally.

[RandomGuy]

It's just part of giving balance Dan.

Any time a republican or white's work can be misconstrued to be a racist remark, it is reported to death. This is just balance. Showing the blacks what us whites have to deal with.

It has also been well reported by Fox and conservative programming he was talking about the past sins. Still, his words do foster hatred rather than love. There is no defense of him, nor for Obama, calling this man a "mentor."

The apparent truth is that Obama either feels the same way, or simply used the powerful black message of the church for political gain. Either way, it shows a side of Obama that wasn't well known before.

FYI. I've even called him a racist, however, nobody called me on my misuse of the word. Truth is, few people know the subtle differences between prejudice, racism, racialism, bigotry, etc.

Now remember how the liberals want to legislate hate crimes. "If it APPEARS to be hateful" is a common phrase. Such idiocy is why conservative reject so-called equal rights legislation. Appearance is in the eye of the beholder. Now consider this. Regardless what the verbatim and meaning of Wright's words, he appears to be a racist. What's wrong with us conservatives turning around liberal definitions and using them against them?

The point of the sermon was the the "cycle of violence begets violence".

I agree with that.

A war of ideas will not be won by killing.

[some_user86]

I thought it was actually a pretty damn good sermon, with a good human message. He's a really engaging pastor, actually, and I think if my former pastor had been as engaging, the church I used to attend (because of my school) wouldn't have the attendance problem it has now. That said, my former pastor was/is a good-hearted man. The mythical beliefs are just stupid.

[Don Quixote]

Hmm ... decent points here. However, I am curious to know how and to what extent the famous YouTube clips of J. Wright represent what he actually says, believes, and teaches. Are the clips have all been lifted from their context, and he is actually an orthodox, not overly leftist preacher, who has just been misunderstood? Or is he actually preaching from a far left perspective?

Either way, my main problem with his preaching (not just him, but a large part of the church, both black and white) is somewhat bigger than politics. To put it in a very small nutshell, much of contemporary preaching is not focused on Christ. Too much of it neglects the overall theme of scripture, and the person of Christ, and tends to focus on one thing -- prosperity, healing, tongues, end times, political issues, social justice, etc. Not that these things ought not to be addressed from the pulpit, but the Gospel has some aspects that many preachers hardly touch -- repentance, regeneration, sanctification are three important ones.

Lastly, I'm not sure I would list Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, or John Hagee as leading evangelical leaders. All three, besides being somewhat kooky, represent the dominionist view of church-state relations: that America was founded by God to be God's own nation. Alot of people might be surprised, but those three have little or no influence among Christians who are halfway learned or mature in their faith. I'm a conservative follower of Jesus and don't particularly care what they say or do, so long as they don't embarass the church or drag Christ's name through the mud (Benny Hinn and Parsley are known for this). So attacking their endorsement of McCain is a bit of a straw man.

Now ... if McCain were to get endorsements from ... I dunno ... Richard Land, O.S. Hawkins (a Brit, nevermind), Billy Graham, or some other giant of the faith, that would carry more weight.

[boutons_]

Not to start a new thread.

Here's a story about McCain's "spiritual guide", a white extreme hate preacher:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80436/

Anybody here not voting for McCain because of his embrace of Parsley? Didn't think so.

[word]

pimpin' obama ...

[Don Quixote]

Not to start a new thread.

Here's a story about McCain's "spiritual guide", a white extreme hate preacher:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80436/

Anybody here not voting for McCain because of his embrace of Parsley? Didn't think so.

Hmm. A couple of things to say in response to the article.

(1) Alternet is not known as an unbiased source of political information. Judging from their columnists, they seem pretty far-out there (e.g., Robert Scheer, et al). And who is the author of the piece? He doesn't appear to be anybody special, and it's an opinion piece anyway.

(2) But I don't want to resort to an ad hominem attack. The piece talks about Parsley, who everyone, right and left, agrees is a kook. But I don't see anything racist about his message, at least not anything geared against blacks. Indeed, one of his arguments against abortion is that it disproportionately affects black babies. As for his comments about Islam, I would concur that his church-state views and his tact need some serious work.

Like I said, Parsley has almost no influence among evangelicals with any education or spiritual maturity. And, not to be flippant, I'm not jumping out of my seat in anger over his "deep association" with McCain just because some blogger at a left-wing site says so. Give me a real news article linking the two and I'd be more inclined to believe it.

Pax ...

[boutons_]

"Like I said, Parsley has almost no influence among evangelicals"

the point is that McCain embraces Parsley as McCain's guide. He also embraces Hagee. No problem for McCain, no black people involved.

[PixelPusher]

another angry black preacher (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003021.html)


"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place...[God will say:] And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

- Dr. Martin Luther King

[xrayzebra]

I thought it was actually a pretty damn good sermon, with a good human message. He's a really engaging pastor, actually, and I think if my former pastor had been as engaging, the church I used to attend (because of my school) wouldn't have the attendance problem it has now. That said, my former pastor was/is a good-hearted man. The mythical beliefs are just stupid.

I guess you could say the same for old Hitler and Castro.
Very engaging, good talkers and always a human message.

:dizzy

[xrayzebra]

Got to hand it to you dan, only you could come up with Fox News
as the bad guy and Wright as the mis-understood good guy.
Might want to try it somewhere else, I'm not buying it.

[clambake]

Got to hand it to you dan, only you could come up with Fox News
as the bad guy and Wright as the mis-understood good guy.
Might want to try it somewhere else, I'm not buying it.
shocking that a 110 year old white guy from texas isn't buying it.

shocking :lol

[Don Quixote]

the point is that McCain embraces Parsley as McCain's guide. He also embraces Hagee. No problem for McCain, no black people involved.

And here's mine: give me a legit news story that links the two (or three), and I'd be more inclined to believe it. Look, the MSM most certainly wants Obama or Hillary in the White House in 08, and if they saw a shred of anything with this allegation, I am sure they would run with it. But all we have, so far, is words from an obscure blogger from a lefty blog. I'm open to the idea -- just give us a real source!

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"Like I said, Parsley has almost no influence among evangelicals"

the point is that McCain embraces Parsley as McCain's guide. He also embraces Hagee. No problem for McCain, no black people involved.

So can you come up with a decent link like has been asked multiple times, or are you going to run and hide behind NBADan's skirt when called on for facts?

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/03/15/mccain-camp-disputes-wright-parsley-comparison/


A campaign official disputes that argument, adding that any comparison between the Wright and Parsley situations is “totally absurd.” The official notes that Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, whereas McCain received Parsley’s endorsement at one event and has never attended his service.

[clambake]

so, mccain will accept any endorsement without review?

kinda explains his lack of knowledge regarding america's needs.

[smeagol]

so, mccain will accept any endorsement without review?

kinda explains his lack of knowledge regarding america's needs.

Stupid take . . .

[Yonivore]

Spengler at the Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html) takes a serious look at the theology of Jeremiah Wright, and indirectly at that of Barack Obama. The religious ideas taught at Wright's Trinity Church are derived from those of the "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. During an interview with Sean Hannity, Wright chastised Hannity for his ignorance of the works of these two theologians, who basically argue that since God must take the part of the oppressed, He is essentially "black". And any God who isn't "black" is therefore an agency of the devil.


Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
The McClatchy Newspapers (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html) has a comparable piece on Wright's theology by Margaret Talev, who situates the roots of Cone's book, Black Theology and Black Power (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570751579/wwwfallbackbe-20) in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. "Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation." But even after the 60s the ideas of Black Theology lived on, in Trinity Church most especially.


In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition. Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there.
Thus Jeremiah Wright's widely publicized soundbites are not the incoherent 'rants' and ramblings of an "angry old man" or of slightly senile "old uncle" but the deliberate and vigorous exposition of a systematic point of view which the congregants have every intention of acting upon. Wright's words are not just vocalizations, but 'words that have meaning' in social, personal and foreign affairs. And one of those ideas is apparently the implicit recognition of the right of other oppressed races to create Gods in their own shade of blackness.


For example, the 8,000-member congregation embraces the idea that Jesus was black. It's historically supported left-wing social and foreign policies, from South Africa to Latin America to the Middle East. ... Wright, who hasn't been giving interviews since the controversy broke, told conservative TV talk-show host Sean Hannity last year that Trinity's black value system also had parallels to the liberation theology of laypeople in Nicaragua three decades ago. There, liberation theology became associated with Marxist revolution and the Sandinistas, and split the Roman Catholic Church.
I think Spengler is wrong when he says that Jeremiah Wright's racial theology "is as silly as the 'Aryan Christianity' popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean". Aryan Christianity was a mere provincial vanity; a straightforward claim that a particular race was "chosen". Wright's theology is more subtle. Membership in his elect is defined by which race you don't belong to. The doors to heaven are open to everyone except members of the white race, whose burden, in contrast to Kipling's idea of responsibility, is actually inexpiable guilt. Upon the whites a curse of evil is laid that may not be lifted until the world's end or its change. An indio, Arab and black Jesus are all possible. It is the white Jesus that is inadmissible.

The Cone-Wright view is mirrored in other "liberation" ideologies. For example Edward Said argued in his book Orientalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book)) that whiteness had corrupted knowledge itself. He argued that the West could never know the Arab world because it was conditioned to prejudices of superiority; the white man could never know the truth. The European point (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/17/jan99/said.htm) of view ipso facto "produced a false description of Arabs and Islamic culture ... The notion that Muslims suffer such a form of arrested development not only is false, he maintains, but also ignores more recent and important influences such as the experience of colonialism, imperialism, and, even, ordinary politics." The recovery of true knowledge required first of all the banishment of the European point of view. But even Said isn't original. His ideas are adaptations of earlier Marxist and Islamist ideas. As Keith Windschuttle wrote:


Said is widely regarded by students of literature and cultural studies as not only one of the founders of the postcolonial movement in criticism and of multiculturalism in politics, but still one of their chief gurus. This is despite the fact that his work was not original, as Said himself acknowledges. It is a synthesis and elaboration of two separate theses. One was an analysis that emerged among a number of Muslim academics working in Europe in the 1960s. ... The other source of Said’s inspiration also derived from Paris in the Sixties. This is the writing of Michel Foucault, especially his notion that academic disciplines do not simply produce knowledge but also generate power. Said uses Foucault to argue that Orientalism helped produce European imperialism.
The relationship between Said's Islam and the West has so many parallels with that Cone's world of blacks and whites as to suggest that Wright's admiration for Louis Farrakhan may not be accidental at all; but rooted in an intellectual affinity. While Trinity Church is ostensibly Christian, perhaps its real sister church is the Nation of Islam. Compare Cone's assertion that "black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy", and Jeremiah Wright's sermon claiming that Jesus was a poor black man crucified by rich white people with Farrakhan's argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam) that whites are subhumans who through some demonic assistance have enslaved the world.


White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet. ... The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. ... The Qur'an says that God created Adam out of black mud and fashioned him into shape. So if white people came from the original people, the Black people, what is the process by which you came to life?
If there is anything worse than being white in liberation theology it is being Jewish. While the pulpits of Chicago and Egypt may be thousands of miles apart their themes can be quite similar (http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=865). "In his weekly sermon the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Al-Tantawi, the most senior authority in the Sunni Muslim world, described the Jews as 'the enemies of Allah, sons of pigs and apes.'"


Thirteenth-century Koran commentator Al-Qurtubi explained that two approaches developed among clerics on this matter: The first considers all apes to be the offspring of the sons of Israel. Those of this view base their belief on Hadiths in which the Prophet Muhammad warned against eating particular animals, such as mice and lizards, for fear that they were originally the sons of Israel. The second states that the apes who used to be Jews left no offspring, and that therefore today's apes, pigs, and other animals are the offspring of animals in existence before the divine punishment. Early Islamic commentator Ibn Abbas maintained that anyone whose form was changed lived for no more than three days and did not eat, drink, or propagate. Ibrahim Al-'Ali, writing in Falastin Al-Muslima, states that the Jews who were turned into apes, pigs, lizards, and mice were also punished by not being able to reproduce. However, he claims, "The extinction of the Jews punished with transformation does not mean that their punishment had ended. The punishment left its mark in the souls of the Jews who came after them: their spirit, their opinions, their feelings, and their ways of thought - which are reflected in face and external appearance - became like their nature and like the appearance of apes and pigs, and this profoundly affected their ways of behavior."
Hell is populated with whites and Jews while heaven is thronged with blacks and Muslims. And remarkably this theology is not only allegorical but literal. The idea that God might actually have a skin with pigmentation or a passport was to be found not only in Nazi Germany, Wright's church, Farrakhan's mosque or in the universities of the Middle East. It was also present even a few decades ago in apartheid South Africa. Robert Kennedy's (http://www.rfksa.org/magazines/pdf/6.pdf) story is perhaps the most famous example of the belief that God is white.


During five days this summer, my wife Ethel and I visited South Africa, talking to all kinds of people representing all viewpoints. Wherever we went–Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban, Stellenbosch, Johannesburg–apartheid was at the heart of the discussion and debate.

Our aim was not simply to criticize but to engage in a dialogue to see if, together, we could elevate reason above prejudice and myth. At the University of Natal in Durban, I was told the church to which most of the white population belongs teaches apartheid as a moral necessity. A questioner declared that few churches allow black Africans to pray with the white because the Bible says that is the way it should be, because God created Negroes to serve.

“But suppose God is black,” I replied. “What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?” There was no answer. Only silence.
Probably the most absurd example of the dogma of a racial God is the Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi (http://media.premierstudios.com/nazarene/docs/didache_2_1_Hallig.pdf) (The Church of the Banner of the Race), an ultranationalist sect in the Philippines which proclaims that God is a Filipino (http://jk22b.blogspot.com/2004/12/rizalista-in-philippines.html). The sect exists even today in and around the town of Calamba, Laguna, a town some 35 miles south of Manila (http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/philippinehistory/iglesia.htm), though they have sacred caves in an extinct volcano called Mount Banahaw -- eerie places lit by candles and inscribed with pig Latin inscriptions -- which I used to occasion out of curiosity back when my world was only bounded by distance and the amount of fare available. And yet it is through the memory of the poor Iglesia Watawat ng Lahi that I understand the Nation of Islam and Trinity Church. The sense of grievance; the delusional doctrines; the genuinely touching hope for the coming of a racial savior is Millenarianism, pure and simple.

Racialist theologies are so absurd that they are probably atheisms or political programs in religious disguise. Ivan in the Brothers Karamazov renounces God out of a love for mankind; he wants to supplant the deity with man. And when Jeremiah Wright puts a black man on the Throne of God we should recognize the obvious: that there is no God left after the transaction, only a man raised as high as human hands can hold. Dostoevky's character Kirilov observed "if you shoot yourself, you'll become God, isn't that right?" Or as Cone put it orbicularly "Hope is the expectation of that which is not. It is the belief that the impossible is possible, the 'not yet' is coming in history." He might have been talking about Obama. Margaret Talev at McClatchy Newspapers writes:


It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology. Trinity officials also didn't respond to requests.
Sometimes I wonder whether on some level Barack Obama seriously hopes to become the savior and liberator of his self-chosen people or Peachy Carnehan -- the Man Who Would Be King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_King) -- on the largest scale. That would be an ambition larger, almost, than becoming President of the United States.

[Mr. Peabody]

Spengler at the Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html) takes a serious look at the theology of Jeremiah Wright, and indirectly at that of Barack Obama.

Damn, so you mean that other races try and use their own versions of fairy tales to suit their own agendas? It's not possible. And what? In their own versions of these fairly tales, their imaginary god(s) actually look(s) like them and favor(s) them? Blasphemous.

[Mr. Peabody]

Spengler at the Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html) takes a serious look at the theology of Jeremiah Wright, and indirectly at that of Barack Obama. The religious ideas taught at Wright's Trinity Church are derived from those of the "black liberation" theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins. During an interview with Sean Hannity, Wright chastised Hannity for his ignorance of the works of these two theologians, who basically argue that since God must take the part of the oppressed, He is essentially "black". And any God who isn't "black" is therefore an agency of the devil.



I remember going to a Christian church up in Mississippi when i was visiting relatives as a kid and seeing pictures of Jesus. He was fair-skinned with deep-blue eyes and sandy-brown hair. When I came home, I went to St. James on Theo and the Jesus on the cross looked like a Mexican, with dark brown hair and dark brown skin. Weird, huh? Jesus actually resembled the congregations.

[Doc Jerome]

How many good men get falsely accused and incessantly portrayed as a racist, expatriot in the media by dastardly machinations crafted by all U.S. media outlets? It is clear that reporters, editors, producers and writers lack the courage to go beyond the grotesque and superficial, choosing rather, to elevate and propagate specious stories that appeal to the basest instincts of humanity. :fro

[ChumpDumper]

Spengler at the Asia Times takes a serious look at the theology of Jeremiah Wright, and indirectly at that of Barack ObamaHe didn't look at Obama's at all.

Very weak take.

Obama is there. Ask him.

[Yonivore]

I remember going to a Christian church up in Mississippi when i was visiting relatives as a kid and seeing pictures of Jesus. He was fair-skinned with deep-blue eyes and sandy-brown hair. When I came home, I went to St. James on Theo and the Jesus on the cross looked like a Mexican, with dark brown hair and dark brown skin. Weird, huh? Jesus actually resembled the congregations.
That's kind of different that saying Jesus is of your race and, if he isn't, he's the Devil. Wouldn't you say?

[Purple & Gold]

It's just part of giving balance Dan.

Any time a republican or white's work can be misconstrued to be a racist remark, it is reported to death. This is just balance. Showing the blacks what us whites have to deal with.

:drunk :drunk Do you really believe this shit??

[Don Quixote]

I remember going to a Christian church up in Mississippi when i was visiting relatives as a kid and seeing pictures of Jesus. He was fair-skinned with deep-blue eyes and sandy-brown hair. When I came home, I went to St. James on Theo and the Jesus on the cross looked like a Mexican, with dark brown hair and dark brown skin. Weird, huh? Jesus actually resembled the congregations.

Black Jesus is a prominent prescence in the homes of many in the New Orleans area. That too is silly. But, obviously, the simple fact that mankind tends to make Jesus look like a particular "race" does not entail that he is false or did not exist. It only means that men are stupid and, yes, sinful.

Also, the scriptures never really say what Jesus looked like on earth. And for that, I am glad. Could you imagine what would have happened if the Gospel writers had given details? It wouldn't have been pretty.

[Nbadan]

You know its bad when one of their own shills, Chris Wallace, takes FAUX News to task for 24-7 Obama bashing


S5vzwJXszww

20 hits?

:smokin

[Nbadan]

The Smearing of a Good Man


JKUTQJfJIfY

This video explains to a degree who Reverend Wright is, who his congregation is, and why he questions our government. Included is an audio clip of Ambassador Peck, the man referred to in one of Reverend Wright's sermons, & Ron Paul's similar foreign policy beliefs.

[Doc Jerome]

Will Americans accept this challenge? The challenge to go beyone what we are so eagerly fed. The U.S. media has voluntarily dragged the American electorate through America's political and cultural sewers with their mouths wide open. It's a matter of time however, before everyone loses the taste for this BS.

[xrayzebra]

Will Americans accept this challenge? The challenge to go beyone what we are so eagerly fed. The U.S. media has voluntarily dragged the American electorate through America's political and cultural sewers with their mouths wide open. It's a matter of time however, before everyone loses the taste for this BS.

Oh my, aren't we profound this morning. I will file your
comment in the folder labeled the last two letters in the
above quote.

[Yonivore]

Understand this, something else that has not been reported on enough is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church.
If you would have gone to his church this Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would have found out that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was lynched and crucified (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/23/in-eastor-sermon-trinity-united-pastor-compares-rev-wright-to-jesus/) just like Jesus Christ.

Jules Crittenden (http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/03/23/this-is-not-a-crackpot-church/) examines the crackpottery charges.

I'm glad he's the apparent nominee...although, Hillary would have been as much fun.