Get to know the man America loves to hate:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Wright is nowhere near as offensive as John Hagee, who said repeatedly that America was damned by God.

he has essentially the same message as Fred Phelps Church, that America was punished by God for tolerating homosexuals.

Hagee (and Phelps, and Falwell, and Robertson, and God knows how many others) say God damns America for tolerating homosexuality.

Wright says God damns America for "treating her citizens as less than human" and for "as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme".

It's interesting to note that when a white pastor preaches hatred and says God damns America for being tolerant he will be courted for his endorsement by politicians and even invited to the White House, while if a black pastor preaches for social justice and says God damns America he is branded a hate-monger and a virulent anti-American.

yeah...but but but but, obama didn't put his hand over his heart and and and and he didn't wear the lapel pin...THAT MAN is a terrorist!!

Don't get me started on his middle name. :rant:

Bill Moyers reflects on Jeremiah Wright and the events of the past week.

(For the TLDR crowd, the video is here (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html).)

BILL MOYERS:Welcome to the Journal.

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, "Who's telling the truth over there?" "Everyone", he said. "Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience." That's how people see Jeremiah Wright. In my conversation with him on this broadcast a week ago and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage. Over 2000 of you have written me about him, and your opinions vary widely. Some sting: "Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American hating radical," one viewer wrote. A "nut case," said another. Others were far more were sympathetic to him.

Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist. Many black preachers I've known — scholarly, smart, and gentle in person — uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I've known many white preachers like that, too.

But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else; a safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed. I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, "We the people." Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic.

That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances this week. What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle ? forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy. Hardly anyone took the "chickens come home to roost" remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide or yourself. At least it helps me to understand the why of them.

But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media — the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help — people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions, or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettle some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. We are often exposed us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this, this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner before our very eyes. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said "beware the terrible simplifiers".

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html

I could not agree more.

Nice post, sedan.

Wright is nowhere near as offensive as John Hagee...
That's not the point - they're BOTH disgusting human beings; the difference lies in the connection they have to their respective candidate. That said, discussing the obvious reality of this situation is, once again, seemingly lost on you people. Maybe, like FT, you agree with what Wright has to say about the good old "US of KKK-A". Well, good for you - the rest of us are sickened and repulsed by a man who holds a murderer like Louis fucking Farrakhan in high esteem.
...if a black pastor preaches for social justice and says God damns America he is branded a hate-monger and a virulent anti-American.
Sure, that's what he's preaching..."social justice"; you keep tellin' yourself that, Sedan, if it helps you sleep any better at night.

.....discussing the obvious reality of this situation is, once again, seemingly lost on you people.

That's funny.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the rightwing ignoramuses who cannot understand Wright's anger, and who simply dismiss him as " a nutcase" without really listening to the points he's trying to make.

Maybe, like FT, you agree with what Wright has to say about the good old "US of KKK-A". Well, good for you - the rest of us are sickened and repulsed by a man who holds a murderer like Louis fucking Farrakhan in high esteem.

Yet how odd it is that the same clan of you who ""are sickened and repulsed by a man who holds a murderer like Louis Farrakhan in high esteem"" were not similarly sickened (or even the slightest bit concerned) when you saw Reagan and his representatives (i.e., Rumsfeld) embracing and supporting and selling biological weaponry to a man like Saddam Hussein.

Cluephone for you pal; Hussein used the chemical and biological weapons that this government, under a Republican administration, approved to be sold to him by US Corporations to kills thousands of times as many human beings as Farrakan has ever killed, and he was treated like the best buddy of the band of goddamned thieves and liars (IOW, Reagan and company) that was in power in Washington in the Eighties..........so spare me your fucking faux sanctimony.

""John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions, or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right.""

The hypocrisy of you and your ilk is beyond belief.



Sure, that's what he's preaching..."social justice"; you keep tellin' yourself that

Sedan was correct. He DOES preach for social justice.

And you can just keep on telling yourself that what the preacher of a political candidate happens to think about Louis Farrakan is of greater importance than (at the time in which it happened) the dealings that a former sitting Republican president and his administration had with thuggish and murderous regimes in places like Iraq and South America.

That's funny.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the rightwing ignoramuses who cannot understand Wright's anger...
Anger? And just why is it that Wright's "angry", I wonder? Is it because exploiting the ignorance of his own people bought him a house that's only half the size of an A-list televangelists'? Is it because he was denied an education based on the color of his skin? Is it because his soapbox (pulpit) wasn't big enough? Is it because he's been a "slave to the white man" all his life? You know what...spare me this recycled strawman. On that note, placating Wright's bullshit mentality does nothing for black people, and moreover, it does nothing for us. As a matter of fact, it's flat-out BAD for America (not that you give a shit), BAD for them, and BAD for us. ARGUE WITH THAT.

He "preaches social justice", my ass. :rolleyes: What he's doing is the antithesis of that; he's incensing people by proffering outrageous notions that are so fucking outdated and obsolete, they're ridiculous.

In short, the man's a racist fraud who's stolen more from 'po' black people than any one of us EVER HAVE, period.
..........so spare me your fucking faux sanctimony.
So saith the man who thinks Hugo Chavez represents the "people", and Ahmadinejad's a swell guy. :rolleyes:
Sedan was correct. He DOES preach for social justice.
Well, if that's your barometer for measuring it, then so did Goebbels.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the rightwing ignoramuses who cannot understand Wright's anger, and who simply dismiss him as " a nutcase" without really listening to the points he's trying to make.
I don't think anger explains away the US government ""inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

Nor does it explain the white brain vs. black brain theories.


I think the height of racism is when a liberal accepts and expects this from controversial black figures.
Questioning shows higher expectations.
Fear or reluctance to question is tacit racism.

sedan, you're wasting your time. You may as well try to get me read about what a nice guy David Duke is.

The disgusting part of this is how many people are trying to defend this guy - I guess it's a good demonstration of how people like Hitler managed to get away with some of the things he would say about Jews.

I just hate to see such acceptence of similar rhetoric in our own country.

Wright is nowhere near as offensive as John Hagee, who said repeatedly that America was damned by God.

he has essentially the same message as Fred Phelps Church, that America was punished by God for tolerating homosexuals.
Phelps' "church" is comprised entirely of his family, and is a continuing commercial enterprise. their sole means of support is suing ppl they provoke into assaulting them.

and for what it's worth, they didn't move to SF or Key West.

Phelps' "church" is comprised entirely of his family, and is a continuing commercial enterprise. their sole means of support is suing ppl they provoke into assaulting them.

Maybe they should talk to Hagee about getting some airtime on his TV show since they share the same message.



and for what it's worth, they didn't move to SF or Key West.

Thats nice. So what?

he has essentially the same message as Fred Phelps Church, that America was punished by God for tolerating homosexuals.

The difference is, every poster here has condemned Phelps. You and your ilk keep defending Wright.

This is the man Sedan, dharmadumb and some others are defending. He stole another man's wife while using his collar to counsel them about their marriage. The man is scum.

From the New York Post

May 4, 2008 -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's loose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner - after the man sought Wright's help in saving his troubled marriage, the former husband told friends.

Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife while Wright was counseling the couple at his Chicago church in the early 1980s, The Post has learned.

"That's exactly how he said it," Reed's divorce lawyer, Roosevelt Thomas, told The Post.

"It looks like Delmer might have been right," he said, because after Delmer and Ramah Reed were divorced, she got remarried - to Wright. "Either that or this was the biggest coincidence in the world."

Asked about the relationship between Wright and his ex-wife, Reed told The Post, "Oh, the things I could tell you."

Initially, he didn't believe the rumors.

"People were telling me that my extremely attractive wife was seen with the pastor," Reed said. "But I didn't believe it. I thought, 'So what?' "

Was he wrong in the end?

"Well, yeah," he said.

Asked if Wright broke up his marriage, Reed laughed, then said, "I told my kids I wouldn't say anything to hurt their stepfather, so I'm not saying anything."

But he said he's been hounded by the press and "offered money" to tell his story.


A spokesman for the Wright family flatly denied the allegation yesterday.

"This story has no merit whatsoever and is not based on facts," said George Lofton. "They had problems throughout the course of their turbulent marriage, and the couple never received marriage counseling from Rev. Wright or anyone else."

But Reed, a former investigator for the Illinois secretary of state, told The Post he and his ex-wife went to Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for counseling when their marriage hit the skids over his demanding work schedule.

"I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months," Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill.

"Her father asked me to go to counseling. We thought we'd be together forever. I decided to try to work this out."

Asked if he's forgiven the pastor, Reed nodded.

"I let it go," he said. "I don't want my kids to hear anything negative about their stepfather." He added: "I'm not a vindictive person; I'm a forgiving man."

But years ago, Reed did express anger about the situation, said Harold Davis, who said he learned about the matter through mutual friends.

"Jeremiah knew all the weaknesses of the couple, and he started focusing on the wife, her vulnerabilities, and started doing things she wanted Delmer to do - spending time with her, taking her to the movies, that sort of thing," said Davis, who heads the Chicago branch of football great Jim Brown's Amer-I-can youth program.


"Everybody knew Jeremiah took the man's wife," said Davis. "It was common knowledge."

The Reeds, longtime sweethearts who grew up on the same block on Chicago's South Side, have two children, Nikol, 30, and Nathan, 27. The couple got married in 1975 and split in 1982. Their divorce was final in 1983.


Ramah, 59, married Wright, 66, six years after she divorced Reed, although she and the reverend were a couple for years before getting hitched. They remain together and have a daughter, Jamila, 13.

Wright, who divorced his wife, Janet, in 1978, has two adult children from his first marriage.

Reed said his wife served him with divorce papers in 1982 in an arrangement they worked out together. The grounds were "extreme mental cruelty."

"We agreed that she would say anything she wanted to say to get a divorce," Reed said.

"When I saw the words, I thought, 'Was this necessary?' But I decided [to] let her do what she had to do. I was innocent. I was a good boy. It was amicable. We were sitting arm in arm when we signed the divorce papers."

Obama has severed all ties to Wright, but his former adviser continues to be a nightmarish problem for his campaign. The fiery minister, under fire for his racially and politically charged sermons, has toured the country defending his views and claiming Obama has distanced himself for political reasons.


Activist Derrick Mosley, a self-styled minister who has clashed with Wright, said there's an "unwritten rule" that pastors don't counsel married couples separately - as Wright did with Ramah Reed, he said.


In 2003, Mosley said, "I called him on the carpet about the indecorous manner in which he'd obtained his wife."

In response, said Mosley, "he ranted and raved from the pulpit. He got up and announced, 'If Derrick Mosley is in the building, I want you all to arrest him.' "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5813180

I suppose women are things then, to be bought and sold and stolen like common cattle?

Uh, where did you get that from? That is a stretch even for you. You been hanging out with dharmadumb lately?

...Initially, he didn't believe the rumors...

When did you start believing them?

Uh, where did you get that from? That is a stretch even for you. You been hanging out with dharmadumb lately?
Where did I get it from? Let me show you.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's loose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner

Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife

"Everybody knew Jeremiah took the man's wife," said Davis. "It was common knowledge."

Mosley said, "I called him on the carpet about the indecorous manner in which he'd obtained his wife."

I don't think anger explains away the US government ""inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
Nah, that's just Wright preaching a little "social justice", 'cause we ALL know it sure-as-shit isn't hate-speech (with a tacit side of retribution, Reginald Denny style), right? :@@: I mean, seriously, is it reasonable to assume that his words are gonna make black people angry? Hmmm, well.......if they take what he has to say seriously, then at least they'll go to college, so the good news here is that they'll be semi-educated IN ADDITION to hating our country and resenting the white people who inhabit it. :rolleyes:

Way to break the barriers down, REV. Wright....

If only Dr. King had been so 'enlightened'. :rolleyes:

"I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months," Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill.
Wow, that's ONE town over from where I grew up, and it's a small one, at that.

This is the man Sedan, dharmadumb and some others are defending. He stole another man's wife while using his collar to counsel them about their marriage. The man is scum.

From the New York Post

May 4, 2008 -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's loose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner - after the man sought Wright's help in saving his troubled marriage, the former husband told friends.

Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife while Wright was counseling the couple at his Chicago church in the early 1980s, The Post has learned.

"That's exactly how he said it," Reed's divorce lawyer, Roosevelt Thomas, told The Post.

"It looks like Delmer might have been right," he said, because after Delmer and Ramah Reed were divorced, she got remarried - to Wright. "Either that or this was the biggest coincidence in the world."

Asked about the relationship between Wright and his ex-wife, Reed told The Post, "Oh, the things I could tell you."

Initially, he didn't believe the rumors.

"People were telling me that my extremely attractive wife was seen with the pastor," Reed said. "But I didn't believe it. I thought, 'So what?' "

Was he wrong in the end?

"Well, yeah," he said.

Asked if Wright broke up his marriage, Reed laughed, then said, "I told my kids I wouldn't say anything to hurt their stepfather, so I'm not saying anything."

But he said he's been hounded by the press and "offered money" to tell his story.


A spokesman for the Wright family flatly denied the allegation yesterday.

"This story has no merit whatsoever and is not based on facts," said George Lofton. "They had problems throughout the course of their turbulent marriage, and the couple never received marriage counseling from Rev. Wright or anyone else."

But Reed, a former investigator for the Illinois secretary of state, told The Post he and his ex-wife went to Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for counseling when their marriage hit the skids over his demanding work schedule.

"I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months," Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill.

"Her father asked me to go to counseling. We thought we'd be together forever. I decided to try to work this out."

Asked if he's forgiven the pastor, Reed nodded.

"I let it go," he said. "I don't want my kids to hear anything negative about their stepfather." He added: "I'm not a vindictive person; I'm a forgiving man."

But years ago, Reed did express anger about the situation, said Harold Davis, who said he learned about the matter through mutual friends.

"Jeremiah knew all the weaknesses of the couple, and he started focusing on the wife, her vulnerabilities, and started doing things she wanted Delmer to do - spending time with her, taking her to the movies, that sort of thing," said Davis, who heads the Chicago branch of football great Jim Brown's Amer-I-can youth program.


"Everybody knew Jeremiah took the man's wife," said Davis. "It was common knowledge."

The Reeds, longtime sweethearts who grew up on the same block on Chicago's South Side, have two children, Nikol, 30, and Nathan, 27. The couple got married in 1975 and split in 1982. Their divorce was final in 1983.


Ramah, 59, married Wright, 66, six years after she divorced Reed, although she and the reverend were a couple for years before getting hitched. They remain together and have a daughter, Jamila, 13.

Wright, who divorced his wife, Janet, in 1978, has two adult children from his first marriage.

Reed said his wife served him with divorce papers in 1982 in an arrangement they worked out together. The grounds were "extreme mental cruelty."

"We agreed that she would say anything she wanted to say to get a divorce," Reed said.

"When I saw the words, I thought, 'Was this necessary?' But I decided [to] let her do what she had to do. I was innocent. I was a good boy. It was amicable. We were sitting arm in arm when we signed the divorce papers."

Obama has severed all ties to Wright, but his former adviser continues to be a nightmarish problem for his campaign. The fiery minister, under fire for his racially and politically charged sermons, has toured the country defending his views and claiming Obama has distanced himself for political reasons.


Activist Derrick Mosley, a self-styled minister who has clashed with Wright, said there's an "unwritten rule" that pastors don't counsel married couples separately - as Wright did with Ramah Reed, he said.


In 2003, Mosley said, "I called him on the carpet about the indecorous manner in which he'd obtained his wife."

In response, said Mosley, "he ranted and raved from the pulpit. He got up and announced, 'If Derrick Mosley is in the building, I want you all to arrest him.' "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5813180

come'on! it not like she jumped right from one bed to another!

I suppose women are things then, to be bought and sold and stolen like common cattle?

Well, that and raise your children for you. And take care of the house. And work 40 hours a week, to boot. :rolleyes:

When did you start believing them?
You're right - it probably never happened. I mean, short of someone producing 5 credible witnesses and DNA evidence as "proof" that Wright would stoop to stealing someone else's wife under the guise of counseling, then I guess we'll just have to consider the testimony of the people who were there hearsay, won't we?

Well, that and raise your children for you...
Yeah, especially in light of the fact that men do "next to nothing", right?

I watched the interview and was very impressed. I saw Wright as a calm, lucid, intelligent individual. He is heavily biased in his views, but that's a charge that can be levied on almost any individual. I don't agree with his conclusions, but his arguments are valid. While his reasoning stretches to an extreme, he bases his ideas on logic and fact, which is more than can be said for even some of the posters on this site.

For instance, I believe his accusation that the government infected the black population with HIV is false, but it's not unthinkable. Looking at the Tuskegee Experiments, it's not much of a stretch.

I think what people are really indignant about is that Wright challenges the social fantasies of America the Savior, and America as the Melting Pot of cultures.

Let's look at the first one. Part of our sense of patriotism comes from the idea that America is a beacon of light in the world. It is the land of democracy and freedom, the land of prosperity, the land of hope. But the sad truth is that we didn't get to where we are by playing nice. Throughout American history, we've never been afraid to get our hands dirty, which is a very nice way of putting things. Without getting into the specifics, we did what we wanted and we felt justified because it was all in the name of our Manifest Destiny. We were blessed by God while committing damnable acts.

The one chord that really resonated with me was Wright's quote, "America right or wrong is a very dangerous idea." He's right. Governments are fallible. Governments commit evil. For these evils, governments should be challenged and criticized. If we want God to bless America, America must deserve to be blessed. Sadly, our path towards attaining power earns us the exact opposite of a blessing.

The second thing which seems to irk people is Wright's emphasis on black culture. If we're all Americans, then we all should share the same culture, right? In the melting pot theory, that would be true, but our society doesn't operate like that. In reality, our culture looks more like a salad bowl. Each culture contributes to the overall picture of American society, but they all retain their distinct identities. With black culture, much of that identity had been erased. Black culture has very little connection to its African roots. Wright and his church appear to be reestablishing these connections.

Overall, the man seems to be a very positive force in his community, and I think it's a shame to see him vilified.

Just my 3 cents.

Black culture has very little connection to its African roots. Wright and his church appear to be reestablishing these connections.
Good plan. I certainly have a lot in common with my German ancestry, and in recognition of my cultural ties, I think I'll start wearing lederhosen, 'cause, like, that's me, you know....

Psssst - lemme tell ya something - those actions are DIVISIVE BY NATURE.
Overall, the man seems to be a very positive force in his community...
Unbelievable.
...and I think it's a shame to see him vilified.
Well, one thing's for sure - he did it to himself.

This is the man Sedan, dharmadumb and some others are defending. He stole another man's wife while using his collar to counsel them about their marriage. The man is scum.

From the New York Post

May 4, 2008 -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's loose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner - after the man sought Wright's help in saving his troubled marriage, the former husband told friends.

Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife while Wright was counseling the couple at his Chicago church in the early 1980s, The Post has learned.

"That's exactly how he said it," Reed's divorce lawyer, Roosevelt Thomas, told The Post.

"It looks like Delmer might have been right," he said, because after Delmer and Ramah Reed were divorced, she got remarried - to Wright. "Either that or this was the biggest coincidence in the world."

Asked about the relationship between Wright and his ex-wife, Reed told The Post, "Oh, the things I could tell you."

Initially, he didn't believe the rumors.

"People were telling me that my extremely attractive wife was seen with the pastor," Reed said. "But I didn't believe it. I thought, 'So what?' "

Was he wrong in the end?

"Well, yeah," he said.

Asked if Wright broke up his marriage, Reed laughed, then said, "I told my kids I wouldn't say anything to hurt their stepfather, so I'm not saying anything."

But he said he's been hounded by the press and "offered money" to tell his story.


A spokesman for the Wright family flatly denied the allegation yesterday.

"This story has no merit whatsoever and is not based on facts," said George Lofton. "They had problems throughout the course of their turbulent marriage, and the couple never received marriage counseling from Rev. Wright or anyone else."

But Reed, a former investigator for the Illinois secretary of state, told The Post he and his ex-wife went to Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for counseling when their marriage hit the skids over his demanding work schedule.

"I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months," Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill.

"Her father asked me to go to counseling. We thought we'd be together forever. I decided to try to work this out."

Asked if he's forgiven the pastor, Reed nodded.

"I let it go," he said. "I don't want my kids to hear anything negative about their stepfather." He added: "I'm not a vindictive person; I'm a forgiving man."

But years ago, Reed did express anger about the situation, said Harold Davis, who said he learned about the matter through mutual friends.

"Jeremiah knew all the weaknesses of the couple, and he started focusing on the wife, her vulnerabilities, and started doing things she wanted Delmer to do - spending time with her, taking her to the movies, that sort of thing," said Davis, who heads the Chicago branch of football great Jim Brown's Amer-I-can youth program.


"Everybody knew Jeremiah took the man's wife," said Davis. "It was common knowledge."

The Reeds, longtime sweethearts who grew up on the same block on Chicago's South Side, have two children, Nikol, 30, and Nathan, 27. The couple got married in 1975 and split in 1982. Their divorce was final in 1983.


Ramah, 59, married Wright, 66, six years after she divorced Reed, although she and the reverend were a couple for years before getting hitched. They remain together and have a daughter, Jamila, 13.

Wright, who divorced his wife, Janet, in 1978, has two adult children from his first marriage.

Reed said his wife served him with divorce papers in 1982 in an arrangement they worked out together. The grounds were "extreme mental cruelty."

"We agreed that she would say anything she wanted to say to get a divorce," Reed said.

"When I saw the words, I thought, 'Was this necessary?' But I decided [to] let her do what she had to do. I was innocent. I was a good boy. It was amicable. We were sitting arm in arm when we signed the divorce papers."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5813180


You know it does take 2 to tango right? She isn't exactly innocent and what I'm getting from the article,she didn't rebuff his affections and find another counselor.

Who would have suspected Evil Homer was a Hitler-enabling racist?

Great post, EH.

Your maturity of thought greatly exceeds that of several older members here.

How is it divisive to recognize your native culture? I've got English ancestry and I'm proud of it. How is that hurting anyone?

And he has been a positive force in his community. He's strengthened his congregation, started programs to help the youth, helped the sick and the poor. Just dastardly!

Yes, he did say those words, but everyone's been so focused on just those words, they refuse to look beyond them. Everything has a context, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest.

Who would have suspected Evil Homer was a Hitler-enabling racist?
Well, if it's any consolation, I don't think so at all. Misguided, though he may be, he's certainly not stupid, nor is he a "Hitler-enabling racist" (whatever that means).

How is it divisive to recognize your native culture? I've got English ancestry and I'm proud of it. How is that hurting anyone?

It's not unless it is to the exclusion of other cultures or you belittle other cultures the way he was trying to parody white actions and mannerisms in his diatribe. Offensive and racist were his actions, imo.




And he has been a positive force in his community. He's strengthened his congregation, started programs to help the youth, helped the sick and the poor. Just dastardly!
Dont forget he also plays hide the ham with his parishoner's wives.






Yes, he did say those words, but everyone's been so focused on just those words, they refuse to look beyond them. Everything has a context, and to deny that is intellectually dishonest.People see what they want. Just as you do.

Dont forget he also plays hide the ham with his parishoner's wives.



Hide the ham? Here all this time I thought it was called Hide the sausage. :D

Hide the ham? Here all this time I thought it was called Hide the sausage. :DHam,sausage, guess it all depends on who the fella is. :D

How is it divisive to recognize your native culture?
It isn't, so-to-speak. What makes it divisive is when you place superficial "importance" on something that, in the grand scheme of things, means nothing. If it's purely an academic exercise in the sense that you're curious about your ancestral heritage, then fine - knock yourself out and do the research, but that's not what they're doing. What they're doing is wearing mismatched African garb; like take, for example, a cap from Tunisia and a Dashiki from Ethiopia. Essentially, they're fomenting the notion (falsely, I might add) that they're somehow "different" from other Americans, who just like them, were born and raised here, and are looking to make a life in THIS country.

That said, you like to read, Homer, so perhaps YOU can tell me why Theodore Roosevelt's words are considered passé in today's America:

http://home.comcast.net/~nhprman/trhyphenated.htm

P.S. If you can find a better example of what it is to be an American, then let me know, okay?
I've got English ancestry and I'm proud of it. How is that hurting anyone?
It's not. Just out of curiosity, which month did you get? :confused:

I guess having pride CAN hurt people after all, now, can't it? :(
And he has been a positive force in his community. He's strengthened his congregation, started programs to help the youth, helped the sick and the poor. Just dastardly!
No, that's not the dastardly part. Just as an aside, I wasn't aware that Wright's outreach program extended to people who weren't "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian". You know, I'm tickled pink to hear they have, though. ;) Maybe Wright isn't the separatist prick I had him pegged as.

I read through that link you gave me, but I addressed this in my previous post.

TR's views represent the whole "Melting Pot" theory of America. Unfortunately, that theory isn't true. Every ethnic group has it's own history and culture, which it brings and shares with American culture. However, as much as they mix, these cultures still retain their individual identity.

Your argument that these people are putting "importance" on something that doesn't really matter is ironic, because you place the same amount of "importance" on being an American.

I agree, that ideally, one's ethnicity shouldn't be that important, but I also think by the same token that one's "Nationality" shouldn't be important either. In the end, we're all humans, and that's where our true loyalty should lie. Saying that I'm loyal to these humans because they live near me, while I have no loyalty to other humans because they live far away doesn't make much sense.

This is the ideal, but the ideal is not reality. In reality, people value their ethnic culture as much as they value their American culture. These are just two ideas that make up a person's identity. You can't tell people how they can and cannot define themselves.

African culture is an American subculture that is often overlooked. History shapes identity, and, to me, Reverend Wright is trying to revive these people's history.

Finally, I am vehemently against the idea that a person's highest loyalty should be to their nation, or to any other group. Wright states that his loyalty is to God, and only God. While I don't share that belief, I do share the sentiment. Some people think that a person's highest loyalty should be to themselves, because the individual is responsible for their own destiny. Again, I don't completely agree with that, but I can see the point. My loyalty is not to my country, or to my race, or to any other institution. I am loyal to the human race, and I try to live according to that loyalty as best I can.

Finally, I don't think there is a best example of what an American is. American culture is so diverse, so heterogeneous, and so constantly evolving, that there is no definition of what it means to be an American.


Just my 3 cents.

Who would have suspected Evil Homer was a Hitler-enabling racist?


I don't know -you tell us.

I'm guessing that you're trying to extract this suggestion out of me comparing the acceptence of Wright's commentary on White America to the acceptance of Hitler's commentary on Jews.

That's a pretty obnoxiously-huge stretch there, sedan.

TR's views represent the whole "Melting Pot" theory of America. Unfortunately, that theory isn't true.
Well, that's funny, 'cause it seemed to work when the Europeans came here. I guess they actually WANTED to be part of something new. Go figure.
Your argument that these people are putting "importance" on something that doesn't really matter is ironic, because you place the same amount of "importance" on being an American.
Uhh, yeah, 'cause that's, like, where we live, and all...

Is it a silly expectation, or something?
In the end, we're all humans, and that's where our true loyalty should lie.
I fully agree.
Saying that I'm loyal to these humans because they live near me, while I have no loyalty to other humans because they live far away doesn't make much sense.
But yet, that's EXACTLY what Wright's church is all about. Talk about "ironic".
Finally, I am vehemently against the idea that a person's highest loyalty should be to their nation, or to any other group. Wright states that his loyalty is to God, and only God. While I don't share that belief, I do share the sentiment.
And I can understand that.
Some people think that a person's highest loyalty should be to themselves, because the individual is responsible for their own destiny. Again, I don't completely agree with that, but I can see the point.
Ah, and you just touched on why I think we live in the best country on Earth; it fosters that mindset through reward. I think it's key to everything we have. If there's any reason to be "loyal", it's that; the freedom to pursue your dreams and amass personal wealth.
My loyalty is not to my country, or to my race, or to any other institution. I am loyal to the human race, and I try to live according to that loyalty as best I can.
And no one should fault you for your efforts.
Finally, I don't think there is a best example of what an American is. American culture is so diverse, so heterogeneous, and so constantly evolving, that there is no definition of what it means to be an American.
Essentially, if what you're saying is true, then America, "as one nation", has been relegated to a social experiment that's destined to fail miserably. Wow, have we burned up a lot of time. :(

The European model worked because they all shared nearly the same culture, especially considering the vast majority of immigrants in the beginning were English. As other ethnic groups showed up, they started forming their own distinct communities. Russians, Italians, the Irish, they all had their little niche.

I'm not saying that the American experiment is set up to fail at all. We are one nation, but we are one nation made of many parts. The heterogeneous culture we have here is one of the things that makes this country so rich and interesting.

You're saying that Wright's focus on promoting African culture doesn't make any sense while saying that focusing on American culture does. Stepping back, choosing loyalty to a group because that's where your history is from is just as arbitrary as being loyal to a country because you happen to live there.

The reality is, that while it seems kind of silly to pick your loyalties that way, that's the way it is. Your reason for being loyal to America is just as valid as Wright's reason for being loyal to the Black community.

It's not an either/or situation either. One can share loyalties. If people identify themselves by their ethnicity, that doesn't necessarily conflict with their national identity. One can contribute to the other. If everyone who immigrated from other countries decided to drop their previous cultural history, America would be a much more boring place.

At the base of this, I think is a question of difference. People are different. Some are are African, others are European. Some are Hispanic, and others are Asian. I see nothing wrong in recognizing these differences and maintaining an ethnic identity.

Being of European descent in this country, I don't think I can ever fully understand the importance of that ethnic identity; however, I have gained some perspective from living in other countries as the ethnic minority. Suddenly, my own identity became much more important simply because it was not accepted as the norm. Not being the default, I had to really think about how I defined myself. A big part of that was my race.

Just my 3 cents.

However, as much as they mix, these cultures still retain their individual identity.


You lost me there. If this were true, we'd all be celebrating our African roots.

Who would have suspected Evil Homer was a Hitler-enabling racist?

Great post, EH.

Your maturity of thought greatly exceeds that of several older members here.


You're right, Sedan, but we all hope you will grow more mature one of these days. In the meantime we just accept you as you are.:lolhit:

Homer, there is nothing wrong with celebrating one's roots. Mexicans party on Cinco de Mayo, Irish march on St. Patrick's Day, Italians march on Columbus Day and I have been known to celebrate von Steuben Day. It is a positive thing if blacks celebrate their heritage, if they take pride in Dr. King, if they continue cooking their ethnic dishes. It is not a postivie thing when they say "God Damn America", or accuse the whites of giving blacks HIV.

Celebrating one's culture is not the same as damning one's country.

You lost me there. If this were true, we'd all be celebrating our African roots.
That's kinda what I'm talking about. :confused:

P.S. Thank you for the lengthy reply, EH, and FTR - I agree with a lot of the points you made, but I just can't bring myself to fully accept your explanation here.

Being of European descent in this country, I don't think I can ever fully understand the importance of that ethnic identity; however, I have gained some perspective from living in other countries as the ethnic minority.

Man, I hate statements like this - this is the long-winded version of the ol' "You're white so you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. Of course, this whole idea sprouts from the premise that the only form of minority in this country is a racial minority - which is just idiotic. There are all kinds of minorities - gender-based, attractiveness-based, intelligence-based, weight-based, height-based, etc.

But for some reason, some people think the only minority experience in the U.S. belongs to "people of color." Absurdity at it's finest.

You're saying that Wright's focus on promoting African culture doesn't make any sense while saying that focusing on American culture does. Stepping back, choosing loyalty to a group because that's where your history is from is just as arbitrary as being loyal to a country because you happen to live there.
This is the statement that I'm having trouble with, primarily. In the milieu of academia, if we were to debate this argument philosophically, then sure, you're totally right, but as it stands in reality, I just don't see it that way. As a matter of fact, I can't help but think this type reasoning is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it relies on that dynamic.

Man, I hate statements like this - this is the long-winded version of the ol' "You're white so you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. Of course, this whole idea sprouts from the premise that the only form of minority in this country is a racial minority - which is just idiotic. There are all kinds of minorities - gender-based, attractiveness-based, intelligence-based, weight-based, height-based, etc.

But for some reason, some people think the only minority experience in the U.S. belongs to "people of color." Absurdity at it's finest.
daß Sie rechtes haben.:thumbs:

I'm trying to translate your German in my head (from classes I took 15 years ago, no less :eek: ) - does that mean, "you got that right"?

I'm guessing that you're trying to extract this suggestion out of me comparing the acceptence of Wright's commentary on White America to the acceptance of Hitler's commentary on Jews.

That's a pretty obnoxiously-huge stretch there, sedan.Allow me to quote you directly:

"The disgusting part of this is how many people are trying to defend this guy - I guess it's a good demonstration of how people like Hitler managed to get away with some of the things he would say about Jews."

I take this to mean that those (like Evil Homer and myself) who are defending Wright are the same types of people who enabled Hitler to scapegoat Jews.

If you meant something else I would certainly like to know what it is.

I'm trying to translate your German in my head (from classes I took 15 years ago, no less :eek: ) - does that mean, "you got that right"?

pretty much:thumbs:

Allow me to quote you directly:

What a nice change of pace. I suggest you ask yourself why you didn't do that in the first place.

"The disgusting part of this is how many people are trying to defend this guy - I guess it's a good demonstration of how people like Hitler managed to get away with some of the things he would say about Jews."

I take this to mean that those (like Evil Homer and myself) who are defending Wright are the same types of people who enabled Hitler to scapegoat Jews.

If you meant something else I would certainly like to know what it is.

That's a fair characterization, but that's not the same as calling you a "Hitler-enabling racist." If you can't comprehend that, allow me to simplify - You're an enabler, not a racist. Entiendes?

Furthermore, it's worth noting that my post was made before EH ever responded to this thread.

That's a fair characterization, but that's not the same as calling you a "Hitler-enabling racist." If you can't comprehend that, allow me to simplify - You're an enabler, not a racist. Entiendes?The "racist" part was a reference to Brooks' post.

I made a composite of your accusations.Furthermore, it's worth noting that my post was made before EH ever responded to this thread.Why should that matter?

It doesn't change the meaning of what you said.

That's a fair characterization, but that's not the same as calling you a "Hitler-enabling racist." If you can't comprehend that, allow me to simplify - You're an enabler, not a racist. Entiendes?
"Entiendes"??? Nice touch. ;)

The "racist" part was a reference to Brooks' post.

I made a composite of your accusations.

"A composite," eh? I like that. I think I'm going to have to start employing some composites of your posts and...well, whoever! That sure makes debates so much easier! What a brilliant technique!

Why should that matter? It doesn't change the meaning of what you said.

I agree that it's moot because my opinion didn't change after EH's posts.

However, it irritates me because it presumes that I wouldn't perceive EH's posts any differently from yours. You see, I made that post prior to contemplating EH's posts - it may be difficult for you to believe, but it's just possible that I could find EH more persuasive than you.

"Entiendes"??? Nice touch. ;)

Thanks - but I'd have to attribute the inspiration to mikezila!

"A composite," eh? I like that. I think I'm going to have to start employing some composites of your posts and...well, whoever!By all means.

I doubt I'll experience your difficulty in understanding the intent.
I agree that it's moot because my opinion didn't change after EH's posts.Quite so.However, it irritates me because it presumes that I wouldn't perceive EH's posts any differently from yours.I made no such presumption.

I was making light of your extremely offensive comments (which lost the argument before it even began).You see, I made that post prior to contemplating EH's posts - it may be difficult for you to believe, but it's just possible that I could find EH more persuasive than you.I think EH has been very persuasive -- but evidently not enough to change your opinion.

That's hardly a surprise.

That's hardly a surprise.
Why? Because he still thinks Wright's a pontificating jerk off? You know, Sedan, you can polish a turd all you want, but in the end, you're not changing what it is you're dealing with. When you say that we need to "put his comments into context", that sounds suspiciously like saying we need to validate his anger. To me, I don't care WHY he's wrong - I only care THAT he's wrong. I mean, seriously - why placate that mentality? :confused:

Despite the high emotions, I think we're getting somewhere here.

I think Wright represents the extremist element of a rational viewpoint. I don't think Wright is correct in what he says, but I don't think that he's entirely incorrect either.

Yes, it is wrong to wish for God to damn America. And his assertion that the US Government constructed the HIV virus to kill the black population. These are irrational claims.

But let's tone down the language and see what happens. If Wright had simply said that the government used black men as medical test subjects for deadly sexually transmitted diseases, he would be correct. As it turns out, he believes in the wrong disease.
On the God damn America part: What if, instead, he said: "America sees itself as blessed. However, it has used that blessing to do evil. It used Manifest Destiny to persecute the Native Americans. It used the Bible to justify slavery. It used its "God Blessed Right" to rule the world to oppress and disturb poor nations. America may be blessed, but we have abused that blessing." That would be also true, for the main justifications throughout the growth of this nation have been along the lines of divine providence.

However, this is not what he said. My only point is that there is some reason behind his statements; he just takes things too far.

Finally, Leper, I do believe that it is not possible for the majority to fully understand the minority. Currently, the debate is along racial lines, but if you want to include others, go ahead. Women are a minority in the work place, so they work harder to define themselves and assert their own identity. Obese people have to come to terms with their identity, and oftentimes this gives them a "fat and proud" mentality. When you're in the majority, you don't really have to think about what your identity means because it's the norm. You have the default answer. When I lived in the Dominican Republic, I had to really think about and embrace my identity as a white American. Still, I was lucky, because that's a favored position down there. I have no idea what it would be like to be a Haitian, but I bet it would be far less pleasant, which would only further the need to establish one's own sense of place in the world, lest they be swallowed up by it.

Just my 3 cents.

Nicely done, Homer. Very well said. :corn:

Originally Posted by Freethinker
That's funny.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the rightwing ignoramuses who cannot understand Wright's anger...

Anger? And just why is it that Wright's "angry", I wonder?

I believe you 100%.........I believe that you **wonder** why Wright is angry.

Because you certainly do not have a clue as to why he is.

Is it because exploiting the ignorance of his own people bought him a house that's only half the size of an A-list televangelists'?

No.

Is it because he was denied an education based on the color of his skin?

No.

Is it because his soapbox (pulpit) wasn't big enough? Is it because he's been a "slave to the white man" all his life?

No.


Keep on 'wondering'.

No one can explain Wright's anger to you, because you don't really want to hear about what causes his anger.

It is seemingly far easier for you to maintain your pose of moral indignance toward people (like Wright) who do not share your slavish devotion to the status quo when you're able to keep dumping them into convenient **he's just a crazy n*gger*, or *he's just a crazy radical*, or *he's just a crazy America hater* boxes.

I was making light of your extremely offensive comments (which lost the argument before it even began).


Wow, somehow I managed to say something you find offensive and Wright hasn't - that's laughable.

Despite the high emotions, I think we're getting somewhere here.

I think Wright represents the extremist element of a rational viewpoint. I don't think Wright is correct in what he says, but I don't think that he's entirely incorrect either.

Yes, it is wrong to wish for God to damn America. And his assertion that the US Government constructed the HIV virus to kill the black population. These are irrational claims.

But let's tone down the language and see what happens. If Wright had simply said that the government used black men as medical test subjects for deadly sexually transmitted diseases, he would be correct. As it turns out, he believes in the wrong disease.
On the God damn America part: What if, instead, he said: "America sees itself as blessed. However, it has used that blessing to do evil. It used Manifest Destiny to persecute the Native Americans. It used the Bible to justify slavery. It used its "God Blessed Right" to rule the world to oppress and disturb poor nations. America may be blessed, but we have abused that blessing." That would be also true, for the main justifications throughout the growth of this nation have been along the lines of divine providence.

However, this is not what he said. My only point is that there is some reason behind his statements; he just takes things too far.

Finally, Leper, I do believe that it is not possible for the majority to fully understand the minority. Currently, the debate is along racial lines, but if you want to include others, go ahead. Women are a minority in the work place, so they work harder to define themselves and assert their own identity. Obese people have to come to terms with their identity, and oftentimes this gives them a "fat and proud" mentality. When you're in the majority, you don't really have to think about what your identity means because it's the norm. You have the default answer. When I lived in the Dominican Republic, I had to really think about and embrace my identity as a white American. Still, I was lucky, because that's a favored position down there. I have no idea what it would be like to be a Haitian, but I bet it would be far less pleasant, which would only further the need to establish one's own sense of place in the world, lest they be swallowed up by it.

Just my 3 cents.

Bravo EH.
Well said. :worship:

Wow, somehow I managed to say something you find offensive and Wright hasn't - that's laughable.
:lolhit:

But let's tone down the language and see what happens. If Wright had simply said....

However, this is not what he said.
Exactly.

You know, EH, despite your exceptional post, it's not always what you say - it's how you say it. That aside, you're correct in assessing that Wright DIDN'T say what you did. In short, you can't rationalize something irrationally and expect people to cut you slack when you're indicting their character wholesale. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, that cozener is moving into a million + dollar home off the backs of destitute black people, and the best part is, he profiteers off the notion that we're the ones who've fucked 'em over (like it's a goddamned American pastime). :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think his words are doing the black community a favor, or is it possible that he's simply fomenting bad sentiment (amongst BOTH blacks & whites) with his outdated rhetoric?

Now, lemme ask a simple question.....is what he's doing really "positive" in your opinion??? :confused:

Jesus H. Christ, that cozener is moving into a million + dollar home off the backs of destitute black people, and the best part is, he profiteers off the notion that we're the ones who've fucked 'em over (like it's a goddamned American pastime).
You can't get rich by preaching to poor people. They don't have all that much money to give. You get rich by preaching to the middle class.

You can't get rich by preaching to poor people. They don't have all that much money to give. You get rich by preaching to the middle class.
does it really matter if you get a dollar from a million ppl or a million dollars from one person?

Finally, Leper, I do believe that it is not possible for the majority to fully understand the minority.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. If you've never experienced what it's like to be a minority, from being a white guy in the Dominican Republic to being the fat girl in a gym (Which, frankly, I have no doubt is a much more difficult circumstance than being a black person in America), then you've led a hell of a charmed life.

does it really matter if you get a dollar from a million ppl or a million dollars from one person?
I don't believe Reverend Wright did any televangelism.

You can't get rich by preaching to poor people. They don't have all that much money to give. You get rich by preaching to the middle class.

Ask Jim Jones about that.

Oh wait, you can't... he'd dead.

I don't believe Reverend Wright did any televangelism.
You're splitting hairs. He was paid to espouse his brand of "social justice" (IOW, a euphemism for hatred); he was paid to tell those people EXACTLY what they wanted to hear. In short, he was paid small sums of money by a lot of people to do nothing more than 'preach to the choir'.

The "racist" part was a reference to Brooks' post.
I made a composite of your accusations.Why should that matter?

Well quit calling me a f__ktard poster.

(the f__ktard part was a reference to a Freethinker post.
I made a composite of your accusations. Why should that matter?)

The bottom line in the Obama / Wright mess is that you have to believe that his spiritual mentor, close family friend, book muse and largesse beneficiary kept these feelings a secret from Obama for twenty years.

And in the past four months Barry still didn't know what the fuss was about.

And that Wright somehow mutated just before his NAACP speech into something Obama didn't recognize.

Anyone buyin' it?

You're splitting hairs. He was paid to espouse his brand of "social justice" (IOW, a euphemism for hatred); he was paid to tell those people EXACTLY what they wanted to hear. In short, he was paid small sums of money by a lot of people to do nothing more than 'preach to the choir'.
Thank you for that scathing indictment of organized religion. I'll make sure to contact you in the future for comment should the need arise.

Obviously the voters do not agree with you Brooks.

I admit, I have led a very very fortunate life. Even though I have experienced what it's like to be a minority, I've never been an oppressed minority. White people tend to have it pretty good everywhere we go. Still, it's a discomforting feeling to be "the other" rather than the norm.

And Prae, you're right, I cannot defend Wright's comments, but I can defend his sentiments. It's not like he's just making this stuff up without any rhyme or reason. There's a lot of history at work in shaping his thinking.

Not to equate Wright with being a terrorist, but he displays a similar train of thought. He has taken legitimate problems and warped them into irrational conclusions. Same thing with terrorism. The grievances to justify terrorism are legitimate concerns, but they cannot justify that sort of action. The main problem I see is that people fail to distinguish between the root of a problem and it's symptoms. Wright may be wrong in his conclusions, but we would also be wrong to ignore the deeper issues he touches on by simply dismissing his views under the broad and comfortable label of "racism."


Just my 3 cents.

The bottom line in the Obama / Wright mess is that you have to believe that his spiritual mentor, close family friend, book muse and largesse beneficiary kept these feelings a secret from Obama for twenty years.

And in the past four months Barry still didn't know what the fuss was about.

And that Wright somehow mutated just before his NAACP speech into something Obama didn't recognize.

Anyone buyin' it?

I've never been to a "black" church, but I'm guessing many of them have these types of frustrations.

I admit, I have led a very very fortunate life. Even though I have experienced what it's like to be a minority, I've never been an oppressed minority. White people tend to have it pretty good everywhere we go. Still, it's a discomforting feeling to be "the other" rather than the norm.

And Prae, you're right, I cannot defend Wright's comments, but I can defend his sentiments. It's not like he's just making this stuff up without any rhyme or reason. There's a lot of history at work in shaping his thinking.

Not to equate Wright with being a terrorist, but he displays a similar train of thought. He has taken legitimate problems and warped them into irrational conclusions. Same thing with terrorism. The grievances to justify terrorism are legitimate concerns, but they cannot justify that sort of action. The main problem I see is that people fail to distinguish between the root of a problem and it's symptoms. Wright may be wrong in his conclusions, but we would also be wrong to ignore the deeper issues he touches on by simply dismissing his views under the broad and comfortable label of "racism."


Just my 3 cents.

Wow, dude, you are on a roll.
Well said.

I admit, I have led a very very fortunate life. Even though I have experienced what it's like to be a minority, I've never been an oppressed minority. White people tend to have it pretty good everywhere we go. Still, it's a discomforting feeling to be "the other" rather than the norm.

And Prae, you're right, I cannot defend Wright's comments, but I can defend his sentiments. It's not like he's just making this stuff up without any rhyme or reason. There's a lot of history at work in shaping his thinking.

Not to equate Wright with being a terrorist, but he displays a similar train of thought. He has taken legitimate problems and warped them into irrational conclusions. Same thing with terrorism. The grievances to justify terrorism are legitimate concerns, but they cannot justify that sort of action. The main problem I see is that people fail to distinguish between the root of a problem and it's symptoms. Wright may be wrong in his conclusions, but we would also be wrong to ignore the deeper issues he touches on by simply dismissing his views under the broad and comfortable label of "racism."


Just my 3 cents.

well said, but I think its too deep for some "black and white" thinkers. (I'm not talking about skin color)

1. .... I cannot defend Wright's comments, but I can defend his sentiments. It's not like he's just making this stuff up without any rhyme or reason. There's a lot of history at work in shaping his thinking.

2. Wright may be wrong in his conclusions, but we would also be wrong to ignore the deeper issues he touches on by simply dismissing his views under the broad and comfortable label of "racism."

1. But couldn't you use that same justification for anybody's wrongheadedness?
How do you differentiate that rationale from those of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph?
Have you ever tried to understand the KKK Grand Dragon's troubled past?

When Wright stands in front of a group of people and says that white people invented AIDS in order to kill them, I see no way you can write that off to his history or his perception of being wronged.
As I said in another post, I think you're reluctant not to forgive him because of his race.
Similar to the way no liberal would ever have called Al Sharpton's candidacy a joke.
Until one is not afraid to hold an African-American as accountable as they'd hold a white person, racism continues.

2. Are you saying he isn't a racist or that we just shouldn't say it?
And did you see his NAACP speech?

I think you're extrapolating, maybe inventing, real intellectual depth out of the points he "touched on".

Saying that the educational system has historically been unfair to some minorities is a far cry from saying teachers purposely taught to the "white brain" by incorporating books into the classroom.


I think that if a white preacher had been saying equivalent things, many people would be much more honest and upfront in their criticism.

But the lack of criticism of Wright reflects either fear or lower expectations.

1. But couldn't you use that same justification for anybody's wrongheadedness?
How do you differentiate that rationale from those of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph?
Have you ever tried to understand the KKK Grand Dragon's troubled past?

When Wright stands in front of a group of people and says that white people invented AIDS in order to kill them, I see no way you can write that off to his history or his perception of being wronged.
As I said in another post, I think you're reluctant not to forgive him because of his race.
Similar to the way no liberal would ever have called Al Sharpton's candidacy a joke.
Until one is not afraid to hold an African-American as accountable as they'd hold a white person, racism continues.

2. Are you saying he isn't a racist or that we just shouldn't say it?
And did you see his NAACP speech?

I think you're extrapolating, maybe inventing, real intellectual depth out of the points he "touched on".

Saying that the educational system has historically been unfair to some minorities is a far cry from saying teachers purposely taught to the "white brain" by incorporating books into the classroom.


I think that if a white preacher had been saying equivalent things, many people would be much more honest and upfront in their criticism.

But the lack of criticism of Wright reflects either fear or lower expectations.

Damn, you hit the nail on the head with that post, Brooks! I 100% agree with all of the above.

I think that if a white preacher had been saying equivalent things, many people would be much more honest and upfront in their criticism.



I think white preachers HAVE said equally nasty things and you are right, the response was different. They were not attacked as much as Wright has.

1. But couldn't you use that same justification for anybody's wrongheadedness?
How do you differentiate that rationale from those of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph?
Have you ever tried to understand the KKK Grand Dragon's troubled past?

When Wright stands in front of a group of people and says that white people invented AIDS in order to kill them, I see no way you can write that off to his history or his perception of being wronged.
As I said in another post, I think you're reluctant not to forgive him because of his race.
Similar to the way no liberal would ever have called Al Sharpton's candidacy a joke.
Until one is not afraid to hold an African-American as accountable as they'd hold a white person, racism continues.

2. Are you saying he isn't a racist or that we just shouldn't say it?
And did you see his NAACP speech?

I think you're extrapolating, maybe inventing, real intellectual depth out of the points he "touched on".

Saying that the educational system has historically been unfair to some minorities is a far cry from saying teachers purposely taught to the "white brain" by incorporating books into the classroom.


I think that if a white preacher had been saying equivalent things, many people would be much more honest and upfront in their criticism.

But the lack of criticism of Wright reflects either fear or lower expectations.
I've never used this cheesy emoticon, but...:worship:

That was spot-on. Especially, your last sentence. That sums up the entire argument.

I think white preachers HAVE said equally nasty things and you are right, the response was different. They were not attacked as much as Wright has.
Puhleeze. :rolleyes:

You know what...upon reflection, you're right; they're not "attacked" - they're summarily dismissed as hate-mongering lunatics by 95% of white America. Black preachers, OTOH, well....apparently they've found an audience in you AND in them.

Mesk,

Please find a post in which a white preacher who said similar things was defended by anyone in Allforums. In every case of a white preacher saying anything even remotely similar to what Pastor Wright said that preacher was criticized not defended.

Pastor Wright has a right to be upset with some of the things with the country just as we all have that right. He also has the right to say, white people created the AIDS virus in order to kill blacks and to ask God to damn America.

He has that right but we have a responsibility to condemn such talk just as we condemn it if and when a white preacher says it. We should not ignore it and we should in no way defend it. Barack Obama should not have ignored it either. He should have condemned such talk when it was first uttered and if the talk continued left that particular congregation.

You are right when you say there are some black and white thinkers at Allforums. If a black says something it is defended and excuses are found. If a white were to say the same thing he would be condemned.

Let's forget Pastor Wright's color and focus on his words. He asked God to damn his country. Obama said nothing. He said whites created the AIDS virus to kill blacks. Obama said nothing.

Obama not only said nothing, he gave money to this man, got married by this man and had his children baptized by this man. He remained a member of his congregation for more than twenty years.

If John McCain had sat in a pew for twenty years listening to such talk, saying nothing and instead praising the preacher who spoke the words there would be a hue and cry throughout the land calling for his scalp.

If you cannot see this it is because you think in black and white........black excused, white condemned.

1. But couldn't you use that same justification for anybody's wrongheadedness?

Sure. Ever meet anyone who was always right, or always wrong?


How do you differentiate that rationale from those of the Unabomber or Eric Rudolph?
Have you ever tried to understand the KKK Grand Dragon's troubled past?

These people were condemned for their actions as much as their words. Except perhaps the unspecified Grand Dragon. ;)


When Wright stands in front of a group of people and says that white people invented AIDS in order to kill them, I see no way you can write that off to his history or his perception of being wronged.

If we're going to eliminate such ideas from our collective consciousness, shouldn't we make some effort to understand their origins?


As I said in another post, I think you're reluctant not to forgive him because of his race.

Personally, I think his age is as important as his race.


Similar to the way no liberal would ever have called Al Sharpton's candidacy a joke.

I know plenty of liberals that think Sharpton's a joke, myself included.


Until one is not afraid to hold an African-American as accountable as they'd hold a white person, racism continues.

I can agree with that, but I'm not sure why you think Wright hasn't been held accountable. It seems to me he's been raked over the coals pretty thoroughly for his words.


But the lack of criticism of Wright reflects either fear or lower expectations.

Lack of criticism? Where?

Lack of criticism? Where?
Well, that's kind of a gray area, Vile. Have liberals criticized Wright for his words? Ostensibly, in a disingenuous manner, sure they have; they'd be nuts not to. Have they also DEFENDED him for his words? Without doubt. Therein lies the rub.

I think white preachers HAVE said equally nasty things and you are right, the response was different. They were not attacked as much as Wright has.Were they the pastors of someone running for president?

I would like Mesk to name the white ministers who have asked God to damn the United States. While he's at it he can name the white ministers who have accused blacks of creating a disease just to kill them.

Well quit calling me a f__ktard poster.You called me a racist.

Leper called me a Hitler-enabler.

I responded with an extremely mild (given the provocation) jab at the two of you.

And now the two of you are decrying my post?!? I have restrained myself thus far for two reasons. One, I'm very busy this week and haven't the time to address your nonsense posts properly. Two, I'm trying not to fly off the handle when I do so. For now let me just say I'm more than a little bit disappointed in you, Brooks.

I expected such ass-holishness from Leper but did not expect the same from you.

Were they the pastors of someone running for president?In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media." The allegations were so at odds with Graham's public image that most did not believe his account, and Jewish groups paid little attention. Graham released a statement denying that he talked "publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms." He said, "Those are not my words."[14]

In 2002, however, newly declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" confirmed remarks made by Graham to President Nixon three decades earlier. Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon.[24] "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,"[25] said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, including A.M. Rosenthal, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he tells Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."[24] These remarks were considered highly controversial by some Jewish leaders such as Abraham Foxman, who characterized them as anti-Semitic.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversy

Well, that's kind of a gray area, Vile. Have liberals criticized Wright for his words? Ostensibly, in a disingenuous manner, sure they have; they'd be nuts not to.

Perhaps they're just not as colorful as you in there choice of adjectives. ;)


Have they also DEFENDED him for his words? Without doubt. Therein lies the rub.

Why? It's not like every sentence the man utters is an exercise in hate and racism. I've listened to one of his sermons, and there was much good in his message that day. Was there some regrettable stuff in there too? Sure, but my dad was a bit of a racist too, by today's standards. That doesn't detract from the good things he had to teach.

In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media." The allegations were so at odds with Graham's public image that most did not believe his account, and Jewish groups paid little attention. Graham released a statement denying that he talked "publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms." He said, "Those are not my words."[14]

In 2002, however, newly declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" confirmed remarks made by Graham to President Nixon three decades earlier. Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon.[24] "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,"[25] said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, including A.M. Rosenthal, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he tells Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."[24] These remarks were considered highly controversial by some Jewish leaders such as Abraham Foxman, who characterized them as anti-Semitic.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversy
Seems to me a lot has changed since Nixon was in office, yes?

Vile: These people were condemned for their actions as much as their words. Except perhaps the unspecified Grand Dragon. ;)
I was responding to this comment "There's a lot of history at work in shaping his thinking" which, although applied to Wright in this case, can be used to justify anyone's actions.



If we're going to eliminate such ideas from our collective consciousness, shouldn't we make some effort to understand their origins?
Typically, yes. But sometimes the origins of words may just come from a totally illogical and exaggerated place (or one making a good living at it).
They don't always warrant the effort.



Personally, I think his age is as important as his race.
Somewhere up there, or down there, Strom Thurmond is saying "Where were you when ah was alave?"


I know plenty of liberals that think Sharpton's a joke, myself included.
Yeah, that was a bad generalization. I should have said some liberals and their media.



I can agree with that, but I'm not sure why you think Wright hasn't been held accountable. It seems to me he's been raked over the coals pretty thoroughly for his words.

Lack of criticism? Where?


From Homer - :
"Overall, the man seems to be a very positive force in his community, and I think it's a shame to see him vilified."

This is more than a defense. This is praise.

1. You called me a racist.

2. And now the two of you are decrying my post?!?

3. For now let me just say I'm more than a little bit disappointed in you, Brooks.
I expected such ass-holishness from Leper but did not expect the same from you.
1. Did I?

2. My only complaint about your post was your clumsily assigning something I said to someone else.

3. Gee, I hate not living up to the expectations of someone who thinks I'm an asshole.

[INDENT]In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media."
I'm waiting for someone here to tell us we should consider his background and his age before judging him on this.

Did I?I know how you play this game, Brooks. You make a broad statement like "[it is] the height of racism is when a liberal accepts and expects this from controversial black figures" and then when you get called on it you will say the remark was not aimed at anyone in particular. But in this case I'm afraid your target is all too obvious. And now when I say that you called me a racist you will become indignant and claim I am telling you what you think. Well, that's too darn bad. If your intent is not to say that the defenders of Wright are themselves racists then I can not fathom why you would make such a statement in the first place.My only complaint about your post was your clumsily assigning something I said to someone else.Read it again.

I made no such assignation.Gee, I hate not living up to the expectations of someone who thinks I'm an asshole.I don't think you're an asshole.

That's why I'm disappointed when you act like one.

Sort of like when someone you know isn't a racist says something that makes them sound like they are.

Wow, somehow I managed to say something you find offensive and Wright hasn't - that's laughable.I have said from the start that Wright has made hurtful, divisive and stupid remarks.

You either haven't been paying attention or are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

Seeing as you're a lawyer I suspect it's the latter.

Have liberals criticized Wright for his words? Ostensibly, in a disingenuous manner, sure they have; they'd be nuts not to. Have they also DEFENDED him.............

Yes.

But only that tiny fraction of the citizenry who are both honest and intelligent enough to acknowledge what this country has done and how it has treated blacks historically.

But the lack of criticism of Wright reflects either fear or lower expectations.:worship: I have to wonder which planet you two are on.

It can't be this one.

You're right, Sedan, but we all hope you will grow more mature one of these days. In the meantime we just accept you as you are.:lolhit:Are you taking "witty comeback" lessons from Sisko again?