Deeper examination of Rev. Wright's infamous sermons

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Ok, let me say at the outset, this isn't a defense per se of everything he's said. I don't agree with him politically and I still think the AIDS canard he spews is unfounded claptrap...mostly. But I am changing my mind about the two infamous sermons...the "G** D*** America" and "Chickens Coming Home To Roost" ones. In full context, he's not saying anything that a lot of pastors and Christians in general have said about America's sins (though we conservatives usually are thinking of things like abortion, homosexual marriage, the culture of promiscuity, banishing God from the public square, etc.) eventually resulting in God coming in discipline or judgment.

First, the "Chickens" one:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock. (this is a Bible reference from Psalm 137)

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

Now we can nitpick the whether Hiroshima was necessary or what "acceptable collateral damage" means in light of the Bible. But you can't argue with what we did to Native Americans or the slave trade. Our stance toward the old government of South Africa was deplorable.

And Jesus taught that violence begets violence. The Bible says that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. That doesn't mean outright pacifism, but it does mean that you don't purposely and indiscriminately bomb civilians. And we've done that. The Dresden bombings during WWII, the carpet bombing and Napalming in Vietnam. It's an indictment on our government...which is what Wright is careful to distinguish.

Not to mention, he's mostly quoting a US ambassador to the UN...a white guy. Not some Black Panther or Louis Farrakan.

Now, on the G-D America sermon, he starts into a jag about governments failing and lying. He speaks of the government in his Bible text and said the Romans failed. Then he said the British government failed even after it colonized the world. He said the Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed...

“And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent, she failed. She put them on reservations.”

“When it came to putting her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in interment prison camps.”

“When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.”

“The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this. Think about this. For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you’ve got 5 million blacks that are out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you’ve got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condi-Skeezer Rice, you’ve got 1 million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat at the Masters, with his Cablanasian hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women, God has this way of brining you up short when you get to big for your Cablanasian britches. For every one Tiger Woods, we’ve got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.”

“Tell your neighbor he’s (going to) help us one last time. Turn back and say forgive him for the damn, that’s in the Bible though. Blessings and curses is in the Bible. It’s in the Bible.

“Where government fail, God never fails. When God says it, it’s done. God never fails. When God wills it, you better get out the way, cause God never fails. When God fixes it, oh believe me it’s fixed. God never fails. Somebody right now, you think you can’t make it, but I want you to know that you are more than a conqueror through Christ. You can do all things through Christ who strengthens you.”

Now, personally, I don't' think the phrase "G** D***" was necessary to make his point. It was for effect and it worked. I don't like that because it begs for misunderstanding and offense. But he wasn't just taking the Lord's name in vain. He is being specific and from a Biblical perspective, he's telling the truth. Now earlier in the other sermon he mentions the AIDS virus thing which I think is a crock. But then again, our government did deliberately infect black men with syphilis in the Tuskegee experiments so it's not like it's just loony to have the thought cross your mind. I just think there's zero proof and actually proof to the contrary. But the bigger point is, when a government does the kinds of things (aside from the AIDS and drugs accusations which lack merit) that he describes, the probability of God condemning (damning) such actions is quite high.

And we have to come to grips with this. As wonderful as our country is and as much good as it has done over the decades, it has also done some horrible, horrible things. Not just "nobody's perfect" or "we're human" kinds of things. Premeditated, cut and dried, with malice aforethought or callous indifferent evil things. And if you believe in a just God, you have to acknowledge that it's not just abortion or the distortion of sexual morality that will get God's attention. How we conduct ourselves in the world toward innocent people will get His attention too. And it's not some balancing act where God adds up all the nice things we do and all the bad and if we somehow keep the scales tilted toward the good He'll wink at the bad. This is some heavy stuff. God expects us to do the good and to also shun the temptation to react in evil ways.

Anyway, this is really long I know. And I'm sure it will poke the hornet's nest, but if I'm being honest, this is the kind of thing that's rattling around my brain after thinking and watching and reading on this stuff for a couple of weeks.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Not to mention, he's mostly quoting a US ambassador to the UN...a white guy. Not some Black Panther or Louis Farrakan.

True but in fact and not just being nitpicking, but the US ambassador to the UN...a white guy was quoting "what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.” " And to be precise Farrakan has used that expression in several of his speeches rants.

Just pointing that out for context.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Not to mention, he's mostly quoting a US ambassador to the UN...a white guy. Not some Black Panther or Louis Farrakan.

True but in fact and not just being nitpicking, but the US ambassador to the UN...a white guy was quoting "what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.” " And to be precise Farrakan has used that expression in several of his speeches rants.

Just pointing that out for context.

That's fine. But it's just a sidebar IMO anyway.

[GoAU 1,603]

The guy is an idiot and he blows things out of context as much as Mike Moore. I could go into countless details on a mjority of what he posted, and to keep this from being the worlds longest post I will lump some comments together and do some oicking and choosing.

- The Indians - true, we were very much in the wrong with how we handled that situation from beginning to end.

The slave trade - I abhor slavery and racism, but he fails to mention that the blacks in Africa were the ones selling the other blacks into slavery. Slavery was a way of life as far back as recorded history in Africa - think Egypt in the bible, or even in the tribal areas of southern Africa. Two wrongs do not make a right, but slavery wasn't invented by the white man in the USA.

Gernada and Panama - you have got to be kidding me! Our military goes to hige (sometimes too far) measures to protect civilians on the battlefield. Why not throw out the carpet bombing of Germany in WWII while your at it! Exactly how severe were the civillian losses in Gernada and Panama - there must have been huge numbers I was not aware of. By the way, I thought Panama was of Latino decent, not African....

- Qadaffi - true, too bad we didn't get him too...

- Hiroshima - true as well. maybe the dear reverand would have preffered a convential marine assault on the Japaneese mainland - there would have been far less US and Japaneese casualties, right? Wrong! read your history and imagine what that devastation would have looked like.

The next sermon...

- The treatment of the Japaneese citzens - horrid and very regrettable.

- The government giving drugs to the blacks - preposterous! I guess the goverment is now waging war agains the lower income white families in rural areas with Meth?

- His last comment is right - goverments, like people, fail and have shortcomings; God does not. That being said, it's still the best government going, if he's got a better suggestion why hasn't he moved there? I'll even pay for it myself...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The slave trade - I abhor slavery and racism, but he fails to mention that the blacks in Africa were the ones selling the other blacks into slavery. Slavery was a way of life as far back as recorded history in Africa - think Egypt in the bible, or even in the tribal areas of southern Africa. Two wrongs do not make a right, but slavery wasn't invented by the white man in the USA.

While this is true, he didn't contend that slavery was invented by white Americans. It was just one of the things our government did that was utterly abhorrent. And it was one of the worst examples of slavery in history. Slaves in the Old Testament and even the Roman empire had more rights than blacks in the US did. It was chattel slavery of the worst order.

Gernada and Panama - you have got to be kidding me! Our military goes to hige (sometimes too far) measures to protect civilians on the battlefield. Why not throw out the carpet bombing of Germany in WWII while your at it! Exactly how severe were the civillian losses in Gernada and Panama - there must have been huge numbers I was not aware of.

At times we have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Other times we haven't really given a damn. I mentioned Dresden. The carpet bombing of Germany would be another example. There is a vast difference between accidentally killing a few civilians while scrupulously trying to avoid doing so and deliberately killing about 100,000 civilians (the approximate number killed in Nagasaki alone). And it's not just a difference in numbers; there is a huge moral difference.

It's a basic of the Just War Doctrine that you don't kill non-combatants indiscriminantly.

- Qadaffi - true, too bad we didn't get him too...

Killing his child isn't an acceptable loss even if we got him.

- Hiroshima - true as well. maybe the dear reverand would have preffered a convential marine assault on the Japaneese mainland - there would have been far less US and Japaneese casualties, right? Wrong! read your history and imagine what that devastation would have looked like.

There is plenty of evidence that the Japanese government was on the brink of surrender before we used the atom bomb. The atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not necessary to end the war. And in the process we annihilated the largest Christian community in Japan.

This article gives an excellent rundown on what the Allied commanders knew, what the Japanese knew, and particularly what the Japanese understood "unconditional surrender" meant with relation to their Emperor.

As the end of the article states, even Dwight Eisenhower believed of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).

The next sermon...

- The treatment of the Japaneese citzens - horrid and very regrettable.

- The government giving drugs to the blacks - preposterous! I guess the goverment is now waging war agains the lower income white families in rural areas with Meth?

- His last comment is right - goverments, like people, fail and have shortcomings; God does not. That being said, it's still the best government going, if he's got a better suggestion why hasn't he moved there? I'll even pay for it myself...

Again, not supporting each and every example he gives, but the overall point, which is still valid even if you drop the drugs to blacks reference. Also, the point isn't to promote some other government as better. In fact, he's making the opposite claim: all governments fail from the Romans to the British to the Japanese and Germans to the United States. But that doesn't mean we just throw out hands up and say "Oh well, nobody's perfect" or expect God to turn a blind eye simply because we're marginally better than the others. God either comes to a place where He eventually judges sin and brings discipline against governments and countries that ignore His laws or He doesn't. I doubt most conservative Christians have a hard time imagining God eventually judging us for allowing the slaughter of innocent pre-born babies or for our sexual morality going in the gutter. Why do we have a hard time believing that these other sins would eventually come back to haunt us?

[Auburn85 432]

my beef is the comment about the government injected AIDS into the black. With a statement like that, someone loses credibility.

Had this comment never been said, he would have still be heavily scrutinized, but he would have had a better defense system.

Ok, now Wright has done his damagae. Now, he's been given ample opportunity to make himself clear. Unfortunately, Bill Moyers didn't touch the AIDS comment with a 10 foot poll.

Instead, throughout the entire interview, it goes right along as though the AIDS comment never happened.

Moyers along with most,either neglect the AIDS comment or deflect it with something to the extent of "The Tuskeegee Airmen thing did happen.Our government did this." Then talk of our controversial war or the dropping of the a-bomb.

Or it gets delfected with "Well, John Hage said controverisal stuff. Pat Robertson said controverisal stuff. Jerry Falwell said controverisal stuff. Ron Parsley said controverisial stuff."

And now, I'm hearing more about how "MartinLuther King Jr. heavily scrutinized the Vietnam War, but today, we mostly just hear of ' I have a dream, ect.' " <<< This part I'm hearing from black commentators.

Rarely, or with the exception of conservative leaning TV media commentators or FOX News will go after the AIDS comment agressively.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

But the overall uproar over this does not revolve around the AIDS accusation. I've heard the criticism and it ranges from saying he's anti-American or hates this country to saying that he blames us for 9/11. Both are ham-fisted attempts at analyzing what he said in context.

He doesn't hate this country. He served it in the military for 6 years. He didn't say that there's nothing good about America, he's saying that when America's government does evil things, God will not "bless" it. If anything, such actions will result in our damnation. And he's right. And saying that our "chickens have come home to roost" regarding the terrorism being waged against us isn't saying that the American people deserve it, it's just stating that in the grand economy of God, when you commit violence against others (such as we have against the Native Americans, the Japanese-Americans, African slaves and so on), you will eventually reap violence yourself. It's inevitable. And if one believes the Bible is true, then you have to acknowledge that he's right about that as well.

That's not to say he's right about everything, but on the main thrust of the arguments against him, he is.

[Auburn85 432]

But the overall uproar over this does not revolve around the AIDS accusation. I've heard the criticism and it ranges from saying he's anti-American or hates this country to saying that he blames us for 9/11. Both are ham-fisted attempts at analyzing what he said in context.

He doesn't hate this country. He served it in the military for 6 years. He didn't say that there's nothing good about America, he's saying that when America's government does evil things, God will not "bless" it. If anything, such actions will result in our damnation. And he's right. And saying that our "chickens have come home to roost" regarding the terrorism being waged against us isn't saying that the American people deserve it, it's just stating that in the grand economy of God, when you commit violence against others (such as we have against the Native Americans, the Japanese-Americans, African slaves and so on), you will eventually reap violence yourself. It's inevitable. And if one believes the Bible is true, then you have to acknowledge that he's right about that as well.

That's not to say he's right about everything, but on the main thrust of the arguments against him, he is.

so because the bigger picture is him being percieved anti-american and so forth, excuses his absoultey false comment about AIDS to be swept under the rug?

[GoAU 1,603]

Gernada and Panama - you have got to be kidding me! Our military goes to hige (sometimes too far) measures to protect civilians on the battlefield. Why not throw out the carpet bombing of Germany in WWII while your at it! Exactly how severe were the civillian losses in Gernada and Panama - there must have been huge numbers I was not aware of.

At times we have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Other times we haven't really given a damn. I mentioned Dresden. The carpet bombing of Germany would be another example. There is a vast difference between accidentally killing a few civilians while scrupulously trying to avoid doing so and deliberately killing about 100,000 civilians (the approximate number killed in Nagasaki alone). And it's not just a difference in numbers; there is a huge moral difference.

It's a basic of the Just War Doctrine that you don't kill non-combatants indiscriminantly.

He specifically mentioned Gernada and Panama - I would like to see details of significant quantities of civillian losses from either.

- Qadaffi - true, too bad we didn't get him too...

Killing his child isn't an acceptable loss even if we got him.

He was targeted, not his child. It is regrettable his child was killed, but regardless of how careful you are, even with percision guided munitions, you can never gurantee zero collatral damage. To expect that is not even realistic.

- Hiroshima - true as well. maybe the dear reverand would have preffered a convential marine assault on the Japaneese mainland - there would have been far less US and Japaneese casualties, right? Wrong! read your history and imagine what that devastation would have looked like.

There is plenty of evidence that the Japanese government was on the brink of surrender before we used the atom bomb. The atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not necessary to end the war. And in the process we annihilated the largest Christian community in Japan.

This article gives an excellent rundown on what the Allied commanders knew, what the Japanese knew, and particularly what the Japanese understood "unconditional surrender" meant with relation to their Emperor.

As the end of the article states, even Dwight Eisenhower believed of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).

IS there any evidence of Japaneese surrender? They didn't have a very good history of giving up, and based on the intel at the time they surely wouldn't surrender the mainland either. Anything else is playing Monday Morning QB.

The next sermon...

- The treatment of the Japaneese citzens - horrid and very regrettable.

- The government giving drugs to the blacks - preposterous! I guess the goverment is now waging war agains the lower income white families in rural areas with Meth?

- His last comment is right - goverments, like people, fail and have shortcomings; God does not. That being said, it's still the best government going, if he's got a better suggestion why hasn't he moved there? I'll even pay for it myself...

Again, not supporting each and every example he gives, but the overall point, which is still valid even if you drop the drugs to blacks reference. Also, the point isn't to promote some other government as better. In fact, he's making the opposite claim: all governments fail from the Romans to the British to the Japanese and Germans to the United States. But that doesn't mean we just throw out hands up and say "Oh well, nobody's perfect" or expect God to turn a blind eye simply because we're marginally better than the others. God either comes to a place where He eventually judges sin and brings discipline against governments and countries that ignore His laws or He doesn't. I doubt most conservative Christians have a hard time imagining God eventually judging us for allowing the slaughter of innocent pre-born babies or for our sexual morality going in the gutter. Why do we have a hard time believing that these other sins would eventually come back to haunt us?

"Could" God punish this country - absolutely! Is there reason for Him to punish our country - there are a lot of reasons to - the removal of the Ten Commandments, removal of "In God we Trust", growing support for homosexual marriage, etc. but I don't see to many things mentioned in the sermon above in recent history to support that. He was using his sermon for personal gain by creating race issues for people like himself, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc to grand stand about. This is politics, pure and simple. We got what we had coming only because we failed to deal with the terrorists properly in prior administrations. Now that we have a CinC that has the juevos to properly deal with these bastards, people are whining because it isn't done overnight.

[GoAU 1,603]

And if one believes the Bible is true, then you have to acknowledge that he's right about that as well.

I most certainly do not have to acknowledge he is right, and I do believe in the Bible.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

But the overall uproar over this does not revolve around the AIDS accusation. I've heard the criticism and it ranges from saying he's anti-American or hates this country to saying that he blames us for 9/11. Both are ham-fisted attempts at analyzing what he said in context.

He doesn't hate this country. He served it in the military for 6 years. He didn't say that there's nothing good about America, he's saying that when America's government does evil things, God will not "bless" it. If anything, such actions will result in our damnation. And he's right. And saying that our "chickens have come home to roost" regarding the terrorism being waged against us isn't saying that the American people deserve it, it's just stating that in the grand economy of God, when you commit violence against others (such as we have against the Native Americans, the Japanese-Americans, African slaves and so on), you will eventually reap violence yourself. It's inevitable. And if one believes the Bible is true, then you have to acknowledge that he's right about that as well.

That's not to say he's right about everything, but on the main thrust of the arguments against him, he is.

so because the bigger picture is him being percieved anti-american and so forth, excuses his absoultey false comment about AIDS to be swept under the rug?

No, it's just not the main point. And even if you remove it, it doesn't change his argument to any appreciable degree given the other things he mentioned.

But just as I mentioned with the syphilis study in Tuskegee, when you see our government do things like this, you can certainly understand why some people might be willing to consider the possibility.

[Auburn85 432]

well, at least the media is showing consistency.

[RunInRed 16,494]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

He specifically mentioned Gernada and Panama - I would like to see details of significant quantities of civillian losses from either.

Out of all that you want to pick out Grenada and Panama to debate? One hundred thousand unarmed civilians vaporized in Nagasaki, firebombing of Dresden and carpetbombing of Germany and his take on Grenada or Panama is what the whole thing hinges on?

He was targeted, not his child. It is regrettable his child was killed, but regardless of how careful you are, even with percision guided munitions, you can never gurantee zero collatral damage. To expect that is not even realistic.

We targeted his house. When you drop a bomb directly on someone's house and they have a family, chances are you might kill a kid.

IS there any evidence of Japaneese surrender? They didn't have a very good history of giving up, and based on the intel at the time they surely wouldn't surrender the mainland either. Anything else is playing Monday Morning QB.

Did you read the article at all? There were multiple intercepted messages that we had from the Japanese that indicated they were ready to negotiate a surrender. We knew this in July 1945, weeks before we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima. The problem wasn't that a less heinous approach was tried and failed to work. It's that it wasn't even attempted. Japan was decimated. There were no significant targets of military or industrial value left to bomb conventionally. A massive land invasion wasn't even a realistic consideration.

"Could" God punish this country - absolutely! Is there reason for Him to punish our country - there are a lot of reasons to - the removal of the Ten Commandments, removal of "In God we Trust", growing support for homosexual marriage, etc. but I don't see to many things mentioned in the sermon above in recent history to support that.

You think removal of "In God We Trust" and the Ten Commandments and attitudes toward homosexuality to be reasons for God to judge America, but killing innocent civilians wouldn't be reason enough? I think all of those things would be reason enough. If we hung the commandments in every public building from Maine to California and banned gay marriage for all time, it wouldn't remove the blood from our hands on the atomic bomb drops alone, much less the other examples. We've got to come to terms with this and stop excusing it or minimizing what it really is: murder.

We got what we had coming only because we failed to deal with the terrorists properly in prior administrations...

I most certainly do not have to acknowledge he is right, and I do believe in the Bible.

So you deny that the Bible teaches the violence begets violence and that those who live by the sword will also die by the sword? You don't believe that if a government commits violence against others that God will allow violence to befall them as well? Because that's what he's saying.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that and can see through their bs and that their efforts have failed.

It's not why I initially wanted to discuss it. I heard the sound bites and took them a certain way and wanted to know if Obama shared his views. I still think he's off on many points, but on these particular clips that have been played and replayed over and over, devoid of context or serious theological reflection, I don't think what he said in principle is wrong. Yes, I can knock down this or that example he gives, but other examples that he gave stand and if one is being honest, have to be dealt with.

[Tigermike 3,055]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

So none of this should never have been discussed?

[TexasTiger 13,031]

I appreciate your honest, thoughtful and fair view of this matter. It's unfortunate that the qualities you bring to this analysis are so rare in our society.

One of the chief criticisms of Wright is that he is unpatriotic. That's a challenging term to apply to someone. He's an ex-marine who assisted with a surgery on a President. He served at time others avoided service. He is also very critical of the U.S. government. Does that make him unpatriotic? I don't think so. But the larger question is, why must a preacher be patriotic? I posed the question on another thread, "Was Christ a patriot?" I don't see how he was, at least not in the manner the folks attacking Wright tend to use the term. If Christ was not a patriot, then why is that an important quality of a minister? Still, for many American Christians, their religious views have become inextricably linked to their "patriotism", as they understand it. Personally, I don't think such a view is supported by scripture.

Wright spoke as a Christian minister. Folks can disagree with his delivery or his style, but the basic thesis of the sermon after 9/11 was not one that I think Christ would disagree with. Right after the "chickens coming home to roost" statement, he said, "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism." Folks may differ on the justifiability of some of our actions he criticizes, but I'm not sure Christ would reject all of those criticisms.

Likewise, the sermon in which he said GD America may have been overly "bombastic" and included brief references to some pretty strange notions, i.e. the U.S. government behind the AIDs virus, but the basic thesis was not necessarily inconsistent with Christ's teachings: "damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." For many Americans, notions of patriotism trumps Christian teachings. As a secular country, that is anyone's right, but a man of God may very well look at our government's actions with a critical eye and in a manner intended to provoke thought, introspection and change.

All that said, I think Wright presented himself fairly well on Moyer's show. Since then, his demeanor has been immature and has impeded his ability to communicate his views in a manner more likely to encourage others to reconsider their views of him. He's a bright guy who seems to have done some very good things in his life. He has been recognized by the theological mainstream for his contributions and he is very far from Fred Phelps, as some here have foolishly claimed (proving themselves to be more irrational than the irrationality they seek to criticize) but the chip on his shoulder, however justified, diminishes his being taken seriously. As Obama said today, he has caricatured himself. This one's on him.

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that and can see through their bs and that their efforts have failed.

It's not why I initially wanted to discuss it. I heard the sound bites and took them a certain way and wanted to know if Obama shared his views. I still think he's off on many points, but on these particular clips that have been played and replayed over and over, devoid of context or serious theological reflection, I don't think what he said in principle is wrong. Yes, I can knock down this or that example he gives, but other examples that he gave stand and if one is being honest, have to be dealt with.

[WinCrimson 61]

I'm really impressed, Titan.

I know that you certainly don't need approval from a college student to be secure in your opinions, but I really am.

The fact that you, as a conservative and traditional GOP voter, can look at Wright's sermons objectively and determine which parts you agree and disagree with is nearly unheard of in today's political world. You're a rare breed and I have a lot of respect for you because of it.

Even if you do cast your vote for McCain, we need more objective minded people like you in our nation. Mucho props to you.

[RunInRed 16,494]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

So none of this should never have been discussed?

I understand why in today's environment it was a political issue. Politics in this country has succumbed to this. Yet it still amazes me that the Wright ordeal became a bigger topic than the economy and other very real problems currently facing our nation.

In a way it's sad, but it also gives me hope that maybe, people are starting to see past this nonsense. Hopefully, a new kind of politics is on the horizon.

[Tigermike 3,055]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

So none of this should never have been discussed?

I understand why in today's environment it was a political issue. Politics in this country has succumbed to this. Yet it still amazes me that the Wright ordeal became a bigger topic than the economy and other very real problems currently facing our nation.

In a way it's sad, but it also gives me hope that maybe, people are starting to see past this nonsense. Hopefully, a new kind of politics is on the horizon.

You mean a politics where the truth is told and things are not distorted and presented out of context?

[RunInRed 16,494]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

So none of this should never have been discussed?

I understand why in today's environment it was a political issue. Politics in this country has succumbed to this. Yet it still amazes me that the Wright ordeal became a bigger topic than the economy and other very real problems currently facing our nation.

In a way it's sad, but it also gives me hope that maybe, people are starting to see past this nonsense. Hopefully, a new kind of politics is on the horizon.

You mean a politics where the truth is told and things are not distorted and presented out of context?

I mean a politics where we are interested in solving real problems instead of selling the drama of rogue inidividuals and otherwise advancing stories for the sole purpose of tearing people down.

[GoAU 1,603]

He specifically mentioned Gernada and Panama - I would like to see details of significant quantities of civillian losses from either.

Out of all that you want to pick out Grenada and Panama to debate? One hundred thousand unarmed civilians vaporized in Nagasaki, firebombing of Dresden and carpetbombing of Germany and his take on Grenada or Panama is what the whole thing hinges on?

No, I picked some of the more chronologically relevant parts of his statement. Surely a wise man like yourself could develop a btter method to fight wars where we could eliminate all civillain casualties. I would prefer it, but it just doesn't work that way all the time. I'm sorry if you deemed WWII too violent, but thats the way it was fought back then. Look at the atrocities commtted by the Japanese before you cry them a river. Look at what the Germans did to Russia in places like St Petersburg, or what they did in Auscwitz and other concentration camps. Go ahead, I'll wait for your response abut how we should be above things like carpet bombing, etc. The tools we have now, and what we are able to do now simply weren't available then. the avoidance of civillian losses were pioneered by the US military - no other military on the planet cares as much about avoiding civillian losses while still achieving it's goals as our military. If "black" Panama and Gernada were irrelevant, why did Jeremiah cite them specifically?

He was targeted, not his child. It is regrettable his child was killed, but regardless of how careful you are, even with percision guided munitions, you can never gurantee zero collatral damage. To expect that is not even realistic.

We targeted his house. When you drop a bomb directly on someone's house and they have a family, chances are you might kill a kid.

Maybe we should have asked him to step outside? Or maybe HE should be held accountable for HIS own actions?

IS there any evidence of Japaneese surrender? They didn't have a very good history of giving up, and based on the intel at the time they surely wouldn't surrender the mainland either. Anything else is playing Monday Morning QB.

Did you read the article at all? There were multiple intercepted messages that we had from the Japanese that indicated they were ready to negotiate a surrender. We knew this in July 1945, weeks before we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima. The problem wasn't that a less heinous approach was tried and failed to work. It's that it wasn't even attempted. Japan was decimated. There were no significant targets of military or industrial value left to bomb conventionally. A massive land invasion wasn't even a realistic consideration.

I for one am glad it wasn't even attempted. Perhaps you would be willing to climb on a boat and "give it a shot" and if it fails then we'll try something different. The Japanese on Iwo Jima didn't have a chance left either and fought to the death, even after all hope of resupply or reinforcements was lost. To say what they "would have" done is merely a guess. Do you really think somone wanted to drop atom bombs on Japan? It was the lessor of two evils, and the one that saved American lives, and lots of them.

"Could" God punish this country - absolutely! Is there reason for Him to punish our country - there are a lot of reasons to - the removal of the Ten Commandments, removal of "In God we Trust", growing support for homosexual marriage, etc. but I don't see to many things mentioned in the sermon above in recent history to support that.

You think removal of "In God We Trust" and the Ten Commandments and attitudes toward homosexuality to be reasons for God to judge America, but killing innocent civilians wouldn't be reason enough? I think all of those things would be reason enough. If we hung the commandments in every public building from Maine to California and banned gay marriage for all time, it wouldn't remove the blood from our hands on the atomic bomb drops alone, much less the other examples. We've got to come to terms with this and stop excusing it or minimizing what it really is: murder.

Be a pacifist if you want, and if the world was a perfect place, and everyone else was too I would gladly join in - but for now I will remian thankful there there are men willing to fight and die to defend you from all of the knuckleheads that would love for our nation to loose the will to fight. You can call it "murder", I will call it "defending ourselves" - murder was the suprise attack on Perl Harbor - funny how youleave things like that out...

We got what we had coming only because we failed to deal with the terrorists properly in prior administrations...

I most certainly do not have to acknowledge he is right, and I do believe in the Bible.

So you deny that the Bible teaches the violence begets violence and that those who live by the sword will also die by the sword? You don't believe that if a government commits violence against others that God will allow violence to befall them as well? Because that's what he's saying.

No I do not deny that the Bible says what you quoted - but you are also selectively picking and choosing - what about "an eye for an eye"? You forget the numerous battles in the Bible - Jerhico, David and Goliath, etc. Battles and war should be avoided when possible - but there are other times when you have to do what you have to do. I don't believe what Jeremiah says at all - he is more of a politician than a preacher, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. You can join their congregations if you would like to, but I will continue to support MY country. 9/11 happened because of Muslim radicals and our failure to take proactive steps to stop them.

[Tigermike 3,055]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

So none of this should never have been discussed?

I understand why in today's environment it was a political issue. Politics in this country has succumbed to this. Yet it still amazes me that the Wright ordeal became a bigger topic than the economy and other very real problems currently facing our nation.

In a way it's sad, but it also gives me hope that maybe, people are starting to see past this nonsense. Hopefully, a new kind of politics is on the horizon.

You mean a politics where the truth is told and things are not distorted and presented out of context?

I mean a politics where we are interested in solving real problems instead of selling the drama of rogue inidividuals and otherwise advancing stories for the sole purpose of tearing people down.

From those three statements it appears you are blaming everyone else except Obama & Wright for Obama's present political problems. Are you claiming a great right wing conspiracy? A GRWC that Clinton has been using to hurt Obama?

IF Obama had left that church 2 - 3 years ago this would not be a problem now. It would have been a glitch, a bump in the road that could have been easily navigated and deflected. But he didn't and now it has come back to bite him on the butt.

Let's get this clear - the American people have the right to know everything possible about an individual who is running for president. Everything. If that person has things in their past that would be troubling then they should deal with those things before the opposition and the media gets hold of it. It's called controlling the dialog. It's called getting your spin on things. It's called taking charge and control. Apparently Obama and his campaign staff made a huge strategic blunder in assuming they could cover up Wright and Obama's close relationship and what Wright represents.

[RunInRed 16,494]

Just when I think you have the capability to host rational thought, you come back with more stupidity. You are a living and breathing example of what is wrong with our politics.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

No, I picked some of the more chronologically relevant parts of his statement. Surely a wise man like yourself could develop a btter method to fight wars where we could eliminate all civillain casualties. I would prefer it, but it just doesn't work that way all the time. I'm sorry if you deemed WWII too violent, but thats the way it was fought back then. Look at the atrocities commtted by the Japanese before you cry them a river. Look at what the Germans did to Russia in places like St Petersburg, or what they did in Auscwitz and other concentration camps. Go ahead, I'll wait for your response abut how we should be above things like carpet bombing, etc.

As opposed to what? Our evil was less evil than their evil? The excuses don't really matter that much to God do they? What kind of responses did God give to rhetorical questions like "Should we do evil that good may come of it?" or "Should we sin all the more so that grace can abound more?"

The point is not that the Japanese or Germans were so humane, it's that if you're going to take the moral high ground and assert your way of life and philosophy as superior, it would help not to employ the same methods your enemies do to achieve your end.

The tools we have now, and what we are able to do now simply weren't available then. the avoidance of civillian losses were pioneered by the US military - no other military on the planet cares as much about avoiding civillian losses while still achieving it's goals as our military. If "black" Panama and Gernada were irrelevant, why did Jeremiah cite them specifically?

I'm not approaching this from an angle of picking apart each and every example he gave, I'm taking the bigger view of killing innocents under the excuse of "collateral damage" in principle. I don't care what Rev. Wright's motivations are for specific examples.

Maybe we should have asked him to step outside? Or maybe HE should be held accountable for HIS own actions?

Or maybe if we're so morally superior to him we shouldn't bomb his house knowing that to get one man (who really wasn't that powerful to begin with), we're likely to kill another handful of people who did nothing wrong. I have no problem with holding him accountable. I do have a problem with us holding his child accountable for something his father did.

I for one am glad it wasn't even attempted. Perhaps you would be willing to climb on a boat and "give it a shot" and if it fails then we'll try something different. The Japanese on Iwo Jima didn't have a chance left either and fought to the death, even after all hope of resupply or reinforcements was lost. To say what they "would have" done is merely a guess. Do you really think somone wanted to drop atom bombs on Japan? It was the lessor of two evils, and the one that saved American lives, and lots of them.

I'm now firmly convinced that you are not even attempting to read the article and consider the implications of what was really going on. It was not the lesser of two evils. One was negotiate a surrender which we knew the Japanese were more than willing to do and the other option was to incinerate 200,000 innocent civilians just to show off to the Soviets. That's choosing evil over non-evil.

Be a pacifist if you want, and if the world was a perfect place, and everyone else was too I would gladly join in - but for now I will remian thankful there there are men willing to fight and die to defend you from all of the knuckleheads that would love for our nation to loose the will to fight. You can call it "murder", I will call it "defending ourselves" - murder was the suprise attack on Perl Harbor - funny how youleave things like that out...

First, I want to have an intelligent discussion with you on this, but if you're only kneejerk reaction is to swing wildly between extremes that no one is advocating because of an inability or unwillingness to deal with the stuff in-between those options, then this is a waste of time. I'm neither a pacifist nor do I think you have to resort to savagery. Ya think, one might occupy the middle ground somewhere?

You can fight wars justly and for the right things without resorting to evil.

Second, I didn't mention Pearl Harbor because my concern is not with Japan. You sound like the kid that gets a spanking for smarting off to Mom and justifies it by pointing out that other kids cuss out their parents or even hit them back. That's not the point. Your mom is not their mother, she's yours and she's dealing with what you did, not what they did.

No I do not deny that the Bible says what you quoted - but you are also selectively picking and choosing - what about "an eye for an eye"?

Did Jesus not specifically abrogate the notion of an 'eye for an eye?'

You forget the numerous battles in the Bible - Jerhico, David and Goliath, etc. Battles and war should be avoided when possible - but there are other times when you have to do what you have to do.

Who are you talking to? I've said nothing about being against war in general. I believe in the tenets of the Just War Doctrine as laid out by St. Augustine and agreed upon by centuries of Christians. I even think that WWII qualified as a Just War. What I don't believe and is indefensible is that vaporizing 200,000 civilians when you knew their government was willing to negotiate surrender fits the criteria for prosecuting a Just War.

I don't believe what Jeremiah says at all - he is more of a politician than a preacher, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. You can join their congregations if you would like to, but I will continue to support MY country. 9/11 happened because of Muslim radicals and our failure to take proactive steps to stop them.

Again, you jump to wild conclusions because someone digs a bit deeper and doesn't dismiss everything a man says simply because he disagrees with the tone or certain points of it. I don't think any of us, until we get to heaven and can ask God, know exactly why He allowed something like 9/11 to happen. He obviously could have stopped it as He has foiled other evil plots, but chose not to. The question is, "why?" If you can look at the history of our government and the specifics kinds of things we've done from the CIA, to interrogating and torturing innocent people, to tactics of war such as nuking two Japanese cities, to the propping up of horrible dictators who tortured and oppressed their people and say that you believe none of that stuff could possibly add up to God allowing us to reap some of what we've sown (violence begetting violence), then I really have to question whether you pay attention when you read your Bible.

Again, as I said earlier but seems to be getting lost in the kneejerks reactions, I know our country has done many wonderful things too. But God isn't playing "count the hash marks" where as long as 50.1% of our actions are just and good He'll wink at the evil. That is my point and that is the bigger picture of what Wright is saying that I cannot disagree with.