Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club
Bookworm on Apr 29 2008 at 8:31 am | Filed under: African-Americans, Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton
The most un-rev Jeremiah Wright elaborated today on his various statements during an appearance at the National Press Club. What he had to say was most enlightening since, when he wasn’t prevaricating or deflecting a point with self-deprecating humor, he sounded pretty ugly. Here are a few things that caught my attention:
MODERATOR: What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan? Do you agree with and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?
WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers’ show, one of our news channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago when Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. [I don't really know if the Right Rev. is capable of understanding this, but Zionism is not a religion, it's a political movement. If Farrakhan referred to something as a "gutter religion" he was making an antisemitic statement about Jews. And since I doubt that Wright is enough of a fool to be this confused, Wright is too, and he's hoping that in this bizarre cascade of words, no one will notice.]
And he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for. [Poor Wright. He just doesn't understand why people should be vilified if they keep standing up and saying that Persians, Arabs and Muslims (separate but overlapping groups) are within their rights to (a) state their intention to destroy Israel entirely and (b) take whatever steps they can, from killing one child at a time to building nuclear weapons, to bring that goal to fruition. Whether those sentiments come from Carter, the rabidly anti-Israeli UN, Farrakhan or Wright, they're utterly reprehensible and completely antisemitic.] And everybody wants to paint me as if I’m anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.
I believe that people of all faiths have to work together in this country if we’re going to build a future for our children, whether those people are — just as Michelle and Barack don’t agree on everything, Raymond (ph) and I don’t agree on everything, Louis and I don’t agree on everything, most of you all don’t agree — you get two people in the same room, you’ve got three opinions.
So what I think about him, as I’ve said on Bill Moyers and it got edited out, how many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? [So could Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. It doesn't make them admirable. I'm not actually saying Farrakhan is as bad as those guys, although he definitely espouses their beliefs. I'm just saying that the mere fact that someone can be a demagogue doesn't make him virtuous.] He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That’s what I think about him.
I’ve said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it’s like E.F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen. [Same demagoguery point I made above.]
Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, “You don’t tell me who my enemies are. You don’t tell me who my friends are.” [In other words, Castro is another one whom Wright admires. He has no moral center. Whoops. Strike that. He does have a moral center: The enemy of my enemy is my friend seems to be his view. Since he hates America, despite his six years of military service, anyone who hates America too is a good guy.]
Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn’t make me this color. [This whole string is peculiar. Last I looked, since the Civil War, no one in America, regardless of color, has been putting blacks in the chains of slavery. Even more interestingly, is Wright actually saying here that being black is a bad thing, akin with slavery? Certainly the parallel structure he employs indicates that he believes being black is bad, and that ones enemies visit that curse upon one.]
Also fascinating was Wright’s explanation of what he meant about the difference between him — as Pastor — and Obama — a politician. Considering how well Obama professes to know Wright, given their 20 year long pastoral association, Wright’s allusions to Obama’s honest (or lack thereof) are worth noting:
MODERATOR: What is your motivation for characterizing Senator Obama’s response to you as, quote, “what a politician had to say”? What do you mean by that?
WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, “You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.” [In other words, says Wright, on the Left we all understand that you have to lie to the American people and hide your real viewpoints in other to get elected.]
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. [Again, he's saying that Obama is lying because that's the only way he'll get elected.] Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. [Obama lies.]
I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president. [If you listen to the live broadcast, the very receptive audience screams with laughter at this point.]
I’m not going to dissect any more. It was rather sickening to listen to him. The bile, illogic and dishonesty that flows from him made me feel really bad.
Apropos the fact that Wright’s mental perambulations are really horrible for Obama, some are wondering whether Wright, either out of spite because Obama shunned him or out of avarice because there’s money somewhere, is trying to line himself up with the Clinton faction. If that’s the case, Shakespeare couldn’t have done any better with a plot of ego, avarice, and treachery.
The wildly funny thing about all this is that, because the “non-racial” Obama has managed to back himself into a corner where he is clearly the black candidate, the Democratic party pooh-bahs are supporting him in trickles and floods, despite his falling numbers, because they can’t afford to alienate their single most reliable voting block: African-Americans.
Email This Post To A Friend
[...] white and black brains Michael Goodwin says Hillary is a Bully Kim Priestap at Wizbang Bookworm at The Bookwormroom Allahpundit on Gingrich on Wright Patterico on Andrew Sullivan on Wright by TheAnchoress @ [...]
It would be a shame if one of the outcomes of the Obama campaign was that it set back race relations by several decades. Fortunately, I know that neither Obama nor Jeremiah Wright speak for “black people”. I know that many black people, such as Liberal Juan Williams of NPR fame and black conservatives, are appalled by these people and what they are doing.
It has been quite evident to me that the people that the Jeremiah Wrights, Louis Farrakhans and Al Sharptons of our society represent are emotionally crippled. What nobody dares say is that it is that what Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan have done is ensure that these people stay forever crippled while plucking money from their pockets. Obama has associated himself with truly bad people.
Bookworm, Sometimes I think you really don’t “get it.” Other times, I think you just hate a number of liberals, no matter what they do.
[...] Bookworm Room Our World as We See It The Anchoress The Strata-Sphere [...]
Hello Bookworm,
While I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion about the reason for the DNC’s jumping on the Obama bandwagon, I certainly agree that Wright spat out a whole lot of bilge yesterday morning.
To give the DNC the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they’re still supporting Obama because they are honestly enthralled to this cult of Obama. Obama flatters their every vanity and promises them everything, even contradictory things. I have met men and women who don rose-colored glasses to screen out inconvenient truths because they want so desperately to believe some ideal, misguided or not. It doesn’t stretch the imagination at all to imagine a large group of people doing much of the same thing, i.e. the third of the Democratic Party who supports Obama.
So many red flags have come up during his campaign that he would have surely been sunk had he not appealed to the vanities of the liberal oligarchs of the Democratic Party and their supporters. Demographically speaking, the bulk of the people supporting Obama are the Blacks and the college educated white liberals. Coincidentally, this also happens to be a sizable chunk of Primary voters, and more specifically Caucus Primary voters.
As for your conclusion, Bookworm, while it is true that the Black voters are a significant voting block for the Democratic Party, it does us well to remember that the Democratic Party is the party of tribalism. It is a hodgepodge group of disassociated groups that generally don’t like each other but tolerate each other in order to advance their agendas. If any one of these groups fail to support the Democrats, it is doomsday for them, which makes their tightrope act that much more difficult.
If the loose the Greenies, they lose the general election. If they lose the Blacks, they lose. If they lose the Hispanics, they lose. If they lose the populist white working class, they lose. If they lose the white college educated, they lose. If they lose the American hating Daily Kos Leftists, they lose. This and many more categories of people must be kept into a single voting block to maintain the Democratic Party.
It seems that for the moment, the Democrats are supporting Obama, not only because of his appeal to Black voters, but because he seems to be the best person on the political scene to tie enough of all these disparate strands together to put him over the top for the general election.
Of course, in my view, if he succeeds where Gore and Kerry have failed, he would not be able to effectively govern. To appeal to every group and promise each of them their hearts desire does not make for an effective leader. Those IOU’s cannot be deferred indefinitely.
Hi, HelenL. Help us out? What doesn’t Bookworm get?
In this case, I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church. At this time, I must say I understand Wright more than I do Obama (unless Wright is right about that, too, that Obama - as a politician - must distance himself from Wright to gain votes) in which case I just like Wright more than Obama. Wright is telling the truth. Obama may not be.
Interesting, HelenL. Do you therefore mean that Jeremiah Wright IS the black church or that all black churches are like Jeremiah Wright?
Wright may very well be telling things as he believes them. This is only the “truth” to people that think the truth is based upon how you are looking and where you are looking from.
No, Danny. The fact is I’ve talked about this so much, I can’t remember what I’ve said where.
Look at these posts on my blog. http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/and-now-jeremiah-wright-speaks-out/
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/just-because-im-slack/
and especially this editorial by Rev. John Mendez
http://www.wschronicle.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1028&Itemid=40
Y., I don’t know what you mean.
Excuse me, Helen. Pardon me for chiming in here between Danny and yourself, but I echo Danny’s question. Do you think that Jeremiah Wright represents the Black Church? Juan Williams, who have done in depth studies on Black Churches and teaches it on occasion said unequivocally that Jeremiah Wright does not represent the Black Church at all. I haven’t inducted the matter, but I have serious problems about anyone saying that the Black churches in America ascribe to Liberation Theology and the Black Value System as Wright and Trinity Church of Christ does.
Also, Helen, you said that at the moment you like Wright more than Obama simply because Wright is telling “the truth”? I hope you mean that he is speaking the “truth” by exposing himself to America for who and what he is and what he stands for. I hope you mean that rather than the truth being the content of his statements because his statements are lies, prima facie. If his accusations against America are true, that America would do ANYthing, then Wright would not be alive and, furthermore, would not have been allow to spew his venom for more than 30 years.
I agree that it’s much more pleasant when someone states upfront about who and what they are, but for myself, liking doesn’t enter the equation.
Thomas,
The question, “Do I think Wright represents the black church?” matters very little. Read the essay by John Mendez, URL in comment #11. Let black preachers speak for themselves. Read what Mendez has to say. Then answer this, “Do you think Wright represents the black church?” Don’t court problems based on ignorance. Find out.
I don’t mean to come down hard on Danny and Thomas, but too many people seem to want me to study for them and then argue with me when I do. fact is, I do well to study for me.
Oh crap, #11 is still in moderation. Come on Bookworm, post it.
You can go to my blog and find a post called “A Message of Great Importance . . .” under it a link for “Managing Ignorance” by Rev. John Mendez.
Well, Barack Obama just came out on TV and denounced what Rev. Wright said at the National Press Club yesterday (Monday), and claimed Rev. Wright had said many new things in a new context that he considered deplorable. And that Rev. Wright had called Obama a liar, saying things just to get elected as a politician where Obama doesn’t really believe these things.
I have reread, word for word, as carefully as I could, Rev. Wright’s address and the Q&A that followed it:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/transcript-rev-wright-at-the-national-press-club/
I could not find ANYTHING from yesterday’s transcript that was more inflammatory nor worse than anything Rev. Wright said in the sound bite controversy last month, nor than what he said in earlier appearances over the weekend.
JUST WHAT WAS IT YESTERDAY that was so offensive compared to the earlier comments? Can anyone look at the transcript and identify anything that was WORSE?
I can’t see any reason why Obama would repudiate his pastor based on something worse that was said yesterday. If anything, Wright was careful to be less offensive yesterday! (Though still violating many of my own deeply held beliefs and philosophies.)
I don’t know where Obama is coming from here. He had many reasons to repudiate Rev. Wright before yesterday. He has no NEW reasons to repudiate him based on yesterday. So… what changed?
Or am I wrong? Can someone point out something from the transcipt yesterday that actually was worse?
Perhaps it was in his presentation? As we all know, a lot more comes across in video or in person than can appear in a transcript. Was it Rev. Wright’s body language, appearance, tone, etc, that was so newly outrageous?
I’m interested! Please let me know!
My dear Helen. No one is asking you to study anything for the benefit of others. Danny and I simply asked you a question. You have made some claims, i.e. “I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church”.
Under the rules of civilized discourse, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claims, not the other way around. In this instance, Helen, I am not even asking you to give me a detailed bibliography to support your claims. I simply am desirous of a clarification on what you meant by your statements.
If you decide not to, no harm, no foul.
Bookworm:
You spent a great deal of time and thought on your article today regarding Rev. Dudley Do-Wright/Wrong. I, with some trepidation, will wade into this mess because I don’t believe he deserves the right time of day overall.
I take issue with the Press Club giving him too much time to spew his sanctimonious serpent sermons and attacking the woman, who was only asking the questions that had been submitted in advance. The entire event was not worth the air time it was given - no surprises that he defended himself and continued to his attacks.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable and self righteous, who cannot fathom anything beyond their blind contempt.
It has become very clear to me that he is nasty, angry, aggressive, smug and believes he is the man of the hour at the expense of everyone else. One can be sure that if Obama loses the nomination, he will blame it on the media, ‘the man’ and a yo’ mama mentality.
Rev. Wright is another Farrakhan in pastor sheep’s clothing.
Mike, I think what Minister Wright said that set Obama off was something to the effect that Obama will say anything to get elected.
(paraphrasing) “I answer as a Pastor, Obama answers as a Politician.”
In yesterday’s speech before the NAACP, Wright said that Obama “had” to distance himself because he must do what politicians do. In other words, Obama must distance himself from Wright (and thus, from the black church) in order to be electable. White America is not ready for the message of the black church.
“Obama must do what politicians do.” I think Wright was saying more than just “you have to do what you have to do,” (which is true of any of us and might be as benign as missing a meeting to go to a child’s ball game, because you promised you would.) I think Wright is saying that politicians must tell lies to get elected. And the specific lie Obama must tell distances himself from Wright.
Everyone has lied. But Wright is saying that politicians say whatever they need to to get elected. There is some truth here. This is disturbing to me (and the reason I said I like Wright more than Obama) in light of Obama’s campaign slogan “It’s Time For a Change.”
Thomas, I didn’t man to be Huffy. But I don’t want to type what I already said on my blog. Maybe I’m just lazy.
Please go there and read the discussion and especially read Rev. Mendez’s essay. I am a secondary source.
Helen,
I’ve just read the article by Rev John Mendez. As I’ve said, I take it on Juan Williams’ authority that this is not the view of most Black Americans and Black churches. I find this article by Mendez particularly distasteful. If you have a background in Marxism, this is classic Marxism. It’s not even repackaged to disguise itself. And I’m willing to guess that this man ascribes to Liberation Theology, which is, of course, Marxism in religious form.
Hey Helen. No problem. I know exactly what you mean
Hi Thomas, Rev. Mendez is my pastor. I love the man.
You know, Helen, I don’t much like the taste of my foot in my mouth…
My apologies, Helen.
I should have read your posts rather than just reading the article. I won’t speak ill of him again, and is there anything I can do to make it right by you?
Thomas, Your reply made me smile. Honestly. Please don’t apologize. Just know that I do believe racism is alive and well in the USA and that I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin (against both Native Americans and African Americans).
I doubt it will change your mind - God changed me in an instant - but do go to my blog and read my entries. You will find many others (many of them Christians) do not share my views. And if you read the transcript of Wright’s NAACP speech, you will find that when he was asked, if God loved white racist as much as He does black Christians, he responded by quoting John 3;16. “For God so loved the world. . . ” And when he was asked if God would allow those of other religions (other than Christianity) into heaven, Wright replied, “in my Father’s house are other mansions.”
Take your foot out of your mouth. We are all God’s beloved children.
our nation’s original sin (against both Native Americans and African Americans).
Except for the little fact that Amerindians owned slaves after the Civil War banned slavery. This nation didn’t create slavery but it sure ended it. Call that a sin if you must, but it is not a sin of America.
Helen,
I know personally that racism is alive and well in the US. It’s alive and well all over the globe because it is the universal human condition, not a product of America. I don’t think we can rid the earth of racism, but I think of all the countries in the world, the United States has done the most to mitigate it. Other nations, including Europe, don’t even come close.
I remember clearly when Wright said that at the NPC. How he reconciles that and calling America terrorists, indelibly racist and essentially, for lack of a better word, evil is beyond me. He tried to mitigate what he said after Sept. 11th in his now infamous, “G-d Damn America” by saying that he meant our government and not our people. However, you cut the cards, I think Wright has some heavyweight contradictions mulling about in his head. How else can you reconcile his statement that we’re all God’s children and at the same time believe that America is run by white racists who created AIDS to kill Black people.
I grew up in the Southeast Texas and I know for a fact that Blacks are treated more shabbily than other minority groups. But Wright takes this resentment and runs with it to incredibly extremist views, bordering on crazy conspiracy theories. I have also known many Black people who believe as Wright believes, and even many white people.
There are many things wrong with America, but there are also many more things right. Wright and others of his viewpoint accentuates the wrongs and embellishes it. Don’t you see that this belief is poisonous to the core? It will corrode everything and make the believer see nothing but resentment and decay even if they sit in the lap of luxury. It would make a ruin of everything it touches.
Okay, Y., So America didn’t invent slavery. But slavery was a part of this country since before the Revolution. Slavery, as practiced in the US, was a result of racism. (On other continents during other historical periods, slavery was a result of war. The winners took the losers as slaves. The children of slaves were free,) So while the US did not invent slavery, she sure did perfect it. Racism allowed the child to follow the condition of the mother (so slave owners could freely rape female slaves and keep their own illegitimate children in bondage). Kinda sounds a bit like sin. Maybe I’m mistaken.
The white settles took the native Americans land but did not enslave them, because they weren’t good slave material. After all, we “discovered” the New World. Never mind, it wasn’t lost and had perfectly good people living in it. But take it, we did. And we brought slaves from Africa. They were good material: black and inferior, they spoke many languages and found it difficult to rebel against their imprisonment. But rebel, they did. And when slave owners introduced them to Christianity, they had the audacity to think that “setting them free’ meant “setting them free.” Stupid black people then thought up liberation theology by drawing parallels to the Israelites who were imprisoned in Egypt and thinking God might love them, too.
YES, I call it a SIN.
Thomas, Answers to all of this are on my blog. Look under April 2008.
Helen,
I’m not following the logic here. But let me take a stab at it:
I can never take what Wright says at face value because I’m white (and by default a racist) and it is not possible to understand what he is saying because of the self imposed ignorance of whites to what the actual “truth” is.
Am I right?
I read Rev Mendez’s article as well as your posts and I can’t get over the feeling that people like Wright and Mendez do far more damage to race relations than my genetically inherited racist tendencies. But hey, who am I except for self imposed ignorant, racist white dude, what do I know?
Honestly Helen, I’m trying to understand how you see things from your point of view, but one has to suspend reason, deny logic and subjectively interpret what’s actually said by Wright to do that. In your world the truth seems to only be subjective; at the mercy of the emotions and preconceived notions of the one viewing it. Objective truth has no place. No matter what facts, data or logic is presented that refutes the so called “truth” it will be denied by people who have already determined what the “truth” is.
I ramble on; enlighten me please if I’m wrong.
Spiff
Hi Spiff, You are wrong.
Mostly we can’t take Wright at face value because we’ve heard too many snippets with bad interpretations. In other words, what he said has been taken out out of context. We need to begin with what Wright says, not what someone thinks he said. Even when Wright tries to explain, we get snippets of his explanations. Throw in a bit of white ignorance (meaning white people don’t know what to listen for in black rhetoric), and we have lots of misinformation. Not to mention half of what I said is on my blog not here.
I said, white people are either racists of recovering racists. I’m a recovering racist. I don’t know you and don’t know what you believe. I say this not because all white people are personally racist but because they do not speak out against institutional racism. In fact, we’re desensitized to the point that we don’t even know it’s there. We don’t plan to be racist or endorse being racist; we just don’t know what black people see as racist. And some of us don’t want to. Many white people don’t want to study black history, which is just American history from a black point of view. We’re so used to the victor writes the history that we accept as being right.
People like Wright and Mendez do not do damage to race relations. They speak frankly about the problems that already exist. If we bury our heads in the sand, ignored problems fester. Do we really want “The Fire Next Time”? Do we want race riots in our nation? Or do we want to calm and civilly (like Jimmy Carter
) to read and study and learn what a man like Jeremiah Wright means?
Blacks bring to a sermon their own experience just as whites do. When black people hear what Wright says, they applaud. He has walked in their shoes. Black preachers have a different style than white preachers. Did you catch how many times Wright repeated the word “different” in his speech”? Different learning styles, different . . . One isn’t better than the other; they are different. Did you hear Wright mention that in the “God Damn America” statement, he was quoting someone else?
Why suspend logic? What does quoting then removed from context mean, if not misunderstanding? How objective can you get? And besides did you hear what Wright had to say about white (left brain) vs. black (left brain) learning? I’m accused of being a socialist (read, un-American) and a virtual ding-bat ;_) from time to time. But I ramble on, too. Hoping against hope somebody might “get it.”
Mike -
You wrote exactly what I have been thinking all day as this story has progressed. This whole thing exposes Obama even further as a liar or an idiot, neither of which is something we want in a president.
And now even Helen is admitting that Obama “had to” lie. I didn’t realize that so many on the left believe that it is OK to lie to Americans and, as Bookworm said, hide one’s real beliefs in order to get elected.
Obama must think that most Americans are idiots. Still, I can’t help but think how hard this has been on him. I’m being serious. Politics is hard enough but when you are constantly having to cover your tracks and say things you don’t really believe and remember them so you contradict yourself as few times as possible later on down the road - it’s exhausting. You can see it in his face.
And then there is Wright, who does not appear to have any idea how stupid he looks and sounds.
Bookworm is right - this whole thing smacks of some Shakespearian comedy. At times, when I’m able to overlook the serious consequences all of this could have on the nation, I find myself giggling like a school girl!
But it also is tragic. It is sad that someone like Wright is getting national airtime. It is sad that someone like Obama is actually a serious contender for the American presidency. And it is most sad because the ambition, dishonesty, greed, ego, and racist beliefs of these two men are setting back race relations in this country in ways that few could have imagined possible just a year ago.
Deana
Mike,
I do think that Wright was accurate saying that Obama is a politician and will say what it takes to get him elected. However, obama is running an increasingly vulnerable campaign and at this timeI think Obama rightly saw this as a stab in the back, and by a mentor and ally of decades. Maybe my theory is simplistic, but Obama never disowned Wright over all the years he lied about the country he wants to lead. This time Wright attacked Obama’s own integrity though, not just America’s. Obama had to refute that, plus by extension, all the other crackpot ramblings of Wright. He had to show that this was just another crackpot ramble from an angry loose cannon. If he didn’t, by not condemning the other slanderous statements now, he would give legitimacy to the attacks on himself. I think it was self-protectionism this time.
So, I guess the Obama/Wright friendship is over? Wright is a clever man, glib and humorous. He weaves fact with fiction effectively. a grain of truth in a lie. a grain of lie in a truth- so everything gets blurred and people end up believing lots of lies overall. I don’t know if he is cynical, agenda driven, or if he really believes these things- but I don’t want him advising my president.
Obama has enjoyed a campaign full of adulation while revealing little, and until recently, with little criticism or exposure. Now he is experiencing what a real campaign is like. Candidates should be held accountable for choices, past actions, and alliances.
1Lulu -
I think you touch on something important. Obama spoke out this time NOT because all of a sudden the scales fell off his eyes and he saw Wright for what he is, but rather because Wright’s statement was “a show of disrespect to (him).”
So, let me get this straight. Wright can disrespect America from here to eternity but when he “disses” Obama, the gloves come off.
Gotcha.
Deana
Thanks to those who responded to my question about why yesterday’s speech was the last straw for Senator Obama. (By ‘yesterday’s speech’ I mean not the one for Detroit’s NAACP conference, but the National Press Club symposium kickoff)
I think Rev. Wright’s comments about Obama having to respond as a politician were no worse than what he said with Moyers nor at the NAACP meeting.
I think the points in the speech where he became very snide and insulting were no worse than those points in the sound bites from last month, nor at the NAACP meeting.
The *words* in the transcript were no worse, I still think.
But I have finally viewed the video. This was in fact a completely different presentation than what has come before. It’s all in the vibe, it’s not just in the words. The words themselves… there truly is nothing new there.
With Moyers, Wright was a totally calm, quiet fellow. Exceptionally polite and reasonable.
At the NAACP meeting, he was in full fiery bombast mode; he also slid in quite a variety of really nasty snide remarks… but they were minor chords that were rather lost among all the fiery sermonizing. He talked about the way white bands like Michigan State and U of M marched onto the field, and compared them to the way black bands marched onto the field. Uh, Reverend… hint… there are BLACK people in those white bands, doing those 1-3 times! Remember how insulting he was towards the white band approach? Remember how he described the flat, unemotional approach in non-Black churches with the fiery approach in black churches. OK, I’ll give him that one… but then he went and practically SPAT his sarcasm of the way a white preacher preaches compared to a black preacher… and this after saying that they are not deficient, just different! He can make all the “deficiency” slams he wants, but no one else can! This is just like the liberals who say blacks cannot be racists, only whites can.
I didn’t like those extraordinarily insulting moments, but they didn’t seem to be the POINT of the speech. I tried to accept the bombast and even ended up enjoying it. I really liked his slam on the outmoded educational approach of “readin, ritin, and ritalin”. Probably because I agree totally with him on that, but not just for so-called black students, but for, in general, boys as well.
Like most socialist leftists, Rev. Wright cannot distinguish between race and culture. At the NAACP he actually said this:
“African and African-American children have a different way of learning. They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style.”
Do you see how outrageous a statement this is! What’s unfortunate is that I agree 100% that there are learning style differences among us all! We *do* learn as individuals at different capabilities via aurally, visually, and hands-on tactilely presented information. But at best you can only make the claim that parents oriented towards the African cultural heritage will raise children oriented to right-brain thinking… BECAUSE OF THAT HERITAGE AND CULTURE! Not because they are black. You can only infer from this that Rev. Wright is an out and out, 100% racist. There may be some kind of genetic component to learning styles as there may be with shyness, but you’d better not claim that without proof, and you’d better not claim that the genetic markers are RACIAL in nature. Not without proof. I know too, too many black people in my industry, software, who are way more like me than they are like Rev. Wright, and whose learning style is a lot more like mine is, than apparently Rev. Wright’s is.
But, in closing, to yesterday’s appearance at the National Press Club… it *was* different. This was not a one-on-one. Nor was it a speech to a crowd that was guaranteed to be friendly. He was on a somewhat friendly stage (for the audience) and very unfamiliar stage (with the press crew in the balconies). His one-on-one calmness was gone, and his fiery bombastness was gone. So, what was left? Was that merely a very uncomfortable grin that kept resurfacing at the oddest of times, or was that a true smart-ass smirk that kept showing up? Sometimes I thought he was just very uncomfortable, and sometimes I thought the smirk was the true representation of what is in his soul.
The vibe was HORRIBLE between Rev. Wright and the young lady presenting the questions, during the Q&A session. Extraordinarily terrible. I don’t know if it was the bouncing back and forth and up and down between her and him, but they should not have tried to use the same microphone. Very very odd. He didn’t like it, and she handled it terribly poorly. It looked as if he despised her, and only sometimes remembered to despise only the questions. That was so very uncomfortable to watch. He handled it with an absolute minimum of grace.
So without the one-on-one vibe with Moyers, without the bombastic speech patterns in the friendly confines of the NAACP meeting… Rev. Wright here came across as a very bitter, very angry, very divisive man. Smirking and spitting out his insults with far too great a frequency, and with no bombast to conceal them. I thought the NAACP speech was rather extraordinary oration (though I disagreed with a lot of its themes). I thought this speech yesterday was simply ordinary… and at times downright nasty and vicious. Totally lacking in grace. During this speech yesterday, Rev. Wright was a profoundly unpleasant man.
If you believe in liberation theology, if you believe in what HE calls reconciliation, you are welcome at HIS conference. Else, get the f out of here, we have no USE for you! Is what I took away from it. The video was far, far worse than the transcript.
Yes, yes, Reverend… VERY admirable. VERY reconciling. Well done.
Book,
Great post… and analysis.
Wright is WRONG. (In spite of what HelenL says)
All black churches are not like his. (I am familiar with many)
All blacks do not believe as he does. (Many believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ - which seems foreign to him)
All black ministers do not believe the same racist “doctrine” as Wright. (Only a few)
And Helen, good to see your signature here heckling Bookworm. Also be nice to these Conservative folk who visit Bookworm..
Your old nemesis, ExPreacherMan, is watching you…
And Helen — for one who claims to know sound dispensational Bible teaching, you failed with an “F” when you said, “We are all God’s beloved children.” You know full well that in the Bible, Paul speaking to believers in Christ says:
Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
The whole world is the beloved creation of God, but only believers in Christ qualify as beloved children of God whether they be black, red, white, yellow or whatever. You know that.
Thanks again, Book.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
No. It’s “by any means necessary.” Haven’t you even heard of Malcolm X?
But slavery was a part of this country since before the Revolution.
Neither I, you, nor anyone else was born in this country, any part of this country, before the American Revolution. Nor did they live to see the beginning nor end of that war. So it doesn’t really matter given that slavery is no longer part of this country in the here and now, Helen. Unless you make it matter in some fashion.
Slavery, as practiced in the US, was a result of racism.
You mean the racist idea that blacks are inferior to whites because blacks couldn’t be as educated or well accomplished as whites?
Nobody ever owned slaves because they needed to prove that the black man was inferior to the whites. People owned slaves because nobody had the power and the will to stop people from owning slaves. Slavery is a result of an unbalanced power ratio between the slaves and the slave masters.
The idea that whites are still superior to blacks due to crime rates and what not, and thus this means whites owe blacks some kind of “economic equality” instead of equal opportunity under the law, is another derived form of racism, which you say caused slavery. After all, if blacks were as good as whites, why would blacks need hand outs from the whites? Unless the black folks couldn’t get “equality” by themselves, they had to be handed it via charity and noblesse oblige. And one has to wonder why that would be if blacks were as superior as whites.
The unfair and inequal power balance between slaves and slave masters have already been reproduced in the relationship between African Americans who give the white Democrat government votes in return for welfare and patronage.
So no matter whether slavery was because of racism or because of power imbalances, the end result for today’s America is still the same.
Stupid black people then thought up liberation theology by drawing parallels to the Israelites who were imprisoned in Egypt and thinking God might love them, too.
Socialists and Communists did that before them, you know. Harriet Tubman was codenamed Moses because she lead the slaves to the Promised Land via the Underground Railroad, run by white Catholics, Quakers, and what not.
I don’t know how you think Wright makes God love him by trying to destory the nation that protects him. Harriet Tubman fought for the Union against the South and didn’t sabotage the “white man’s war” just cause it was white people fighting, Helen. Tubman actually did something constructive and positive, even though her education level and speechifying skills were far lower than someone like Frederick Douglass’. And you try to make Wright out to be some guy redeeming people from sin?
I don’t think so.
I also can’t help but think about Michelle Obama through all of this.
Poor woman. I mean, clearly she agrees with Rev. Wright’s sentiments on whites and how horrible America is. But she wants her husband in the White House and there is no way that she isn’t painfully aware of how damaging Wright is to her husband.
Sorry - I can’t help it. I’ve had the TV on all night and watching the liberals squirm over this has been an absolute hoot! You’d think that at some point, they would get sick and tired of having to constantly adjust and clarify their stances on things. But they don’t. It just goes on and on and on.
Surely someone in the Democratic leadership is waking up to the fact that they are getting dangerously close to being ridiculed at the national level - and that is a death knell to anything in life, including a political campaign.
Deana
What on earth does “ridiculed at the national level” mean? Aren’t we still going to vote in November?
ExP –
Any words for us on Minister Wright’s (and Black Lib Theo’s) teaching that the blacks worship a different God than the whites?
HelenL -
If you do not understand how devastating ridicule can be, pls read Book 5 in the Chronicles of Narnia, *The Horse and his Boy*.
Or, picture Dukakis riding a tank with his helmet.
@ Helen Losse
Bookworm, Sometimes I think you really don’t “get it.” Other times, I think you just hate a number of liberals, no matter what they do.
Helen, many of us who used to be liberals DO have a loathing for the smug, smarmy self-righteous nonsense that leftists utter. I do. “Won’t Get Fooled Again” is our theme song. As I was in Berserkeley at its height, albeit only for a year, inhaling doses of Ronnie’s tear gas in the process, and have spent most of my life on or near university campuses, I know whereof I speak. Been there, done that.
In this case, I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church.
I taught one year at a school that got a lot of support from a nearby black super-church (big, on the freeway). What was preached at that church was NOT what the Reverend Wright preached. GD America et al did not emanate from that church’s pulpit, as it did from Wright’s.
I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin
I am not a churchgoer, but isn’t the point about original sin that it cannot be eliminated, cannot be eradicated? That original sin is endemic to the human condition? Chasing one’s tail…
When you call racism a disease, we have a fundamental disagreement. We have reached the stage where many diseases can be eliminated: polio and smallpox, for example. Deaths from yellow fever, from cholera, meningitis, for example, are but a pittance of what they once were. So we can do the same with racism, you imply.
The medical model for treating disease assumes that there is a disease agent, the pathogen, that comes from outside the human body. Identify the pathogen, prevent its contact with humans, and you can prevent occurrence of the disease. By contrast, racism did not come from outer space, nor from a microbe. Racism comes from inside our human souls. While racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism varies according to time and according to society, no human society anywhere has been entirely free of it. Call it fear of the stranger, if you will. I certainly saw enough evidence of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism when I worked outside the US to realize we had no monopoly whatsoever on that score. In fact, we came off pretty well.
While we can reduce racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism, and we certainly have reduced it in the last 50 years in the US, we can no more eliminate the “disease” of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism than we can eliminate the “diseases” of irresponsibility, murder, robbery, adultery, illegitimacy, avarice, anger, self-righteousness, pride, or parochialism.
While we can reduce racism, it is a misreading of the human condition to assume that humans can treat racism as if it were a disease foreign to themselves. The disease of racism. I am reminded of the nonsense of “scientific socialism.” Applying a medical model to a moral and social problem is a gross example of reductionism that is bound to fail.
That being said, I am not about to go out and put my white sheets on again. ( Tom Lehrer lyrics , “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie”)
Yes, Helen, we are going to vote in November.
Helen, people are LAUGHING at Wright.
Obama said one thing that was absolutely true today: Wright was a spectacle. He made such an excellent caricature out of himself that late night comics will have trouble making jokes about this because Wright already made a joke out of himself.
Then there is Obama. Helen, that man is LYING. In order for Obama to not admit that he has been lying, he is now having to get up in front of the American people and assure everyone that he is SO BAD a judge of character that he had absolutely no idea what Rev. Wright really believed, even though:
(A) Wright was his mentor and pastor for the past 20 years;
(B) Wright’s beliefs have been very well publicized in print and on the air; and
(C) Everyone else in America knows what Wright believes.
I mean - there is something hilarious about a presidential candidate getting up and using the “I’m a bad judge of character” as a defense or selling point!! That has to be a first in the history of presidential campaigns!
Deana
Everyone says that light is the best disinfectant. It’s the Lib’s favorite phrase. Let’s hope it works on “Black Liberation Theology” so that the healing can finally begin.
Deana
Please don’t feel badly for Michelle (grin) I think she’s quite used to squirming, biting her tongue and come to think of it…biting that hand that feeds her as well. Haven’t we all noticed how quiet Mrs. O has been after her snide remarks. No doubt gagged by the consultants.
For all those that have weighed in to the discussion:
The discourse on this subject has covered just about everything, except the obvious to me and that is Obama’s theme of hope and change and the now quite obvious association with someone who offers neither, the infamous Rev. Dudley Do-Wright/Wrong.
My initial analysis of Obama is confirmed:
He has a love/hate relationship with life and his associates. A vision of a future, but has been blinded by religious rhetoric, a gift of gab that has been diluted to apologies, a man, who is still a child politician. In a few words…clueless and dreamy. It wouldn’t matter what color he is nor the color of his preacher. It is Obama’s inability to size up the realities of political life that will best him.
Y.,
“Neither I, you, nor anyone else was born in this country, any part of this country, before the American Revolution. Nor did they live to see the beginning nor end of that war. So it doesn’t really matter given that slavery is no longer part of this country in the here and now, Helen. Unless you make it matter in some fashion.”
So, does the US Constitution, written around the same time, not matter to us either? Slavery still matters to black people. It affects their lives daily. White privilege allows us to ignore slavery except as a historic fact.
“And you try to make Wright out to be some guy redeeming people from sin?”
Yes. Exactly.
Ellie2,
Yes, ridicule is devastating. But who is going to “ridicule Democrats at the national level”? That’s what I’m asking. Yes, the Democrats could implode. They could also regroup and kick McCain’s butt. Time will tell. Time being the November elections.
Have you seen the videos the Democrats have with McCain saying he’d stay in Iraq for 100 years? He looks pretty stupid. This campaign is going to get ugly, but real ridicule won’t begin before the conventions.
Of course, the Republicans will ridicule the Democrats, and the Democrats the Republicans. But I don’t think that’s what Deana meant. And if Obama’s the Democratic candidate, will ridicule equal the racism he’s already faced? I have no idea. And I don’t think anyone here does either.
Hi ExP,
I read your narrow little blog all the time. I promised never to comment there again. And I have been true to my promise. What I didn’t promise was to remain silent concerning things of which you seem to have no knowledge, such as the Black Church. I bet you can’t name the seven historically black denominations. A church with a black preacher isn’t necessarily a Black Church in the historical sense. (There are entries on my blog. Go under April 2008 and find them, if you are interested. Feel free to comment on my blog, unless you use racial slurs or personal attacks.)
And yes, we are all God’s beloved children. John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world. . . ” The world” means that means Jesus died for us all. For Jews, for Gentiles, for Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, for Calvinists and Lutherans and Presbyterians, for those marginal groups like Jehovah’s Witness and folks at the Salvation Army. . ), for Muslims, for New Agers, for Buddhists, for atheists, for blacks, for whites. . . . for the kinds you like and the kinds you don’t. Wright said the same thing.
God loves everyone. And wants everyone in heaven with him. Did you come here to tell Jewish bloggers they can’t go to “our” (white Christian) heaven? Shame on you. It’s one thing to tell people about Jesus, and quite another to tell them they aren’t God’s children because they don’t believe what you do.
Your God is too small. But you, my old nemesis so to speak, are my brother, whether you like it or not. And so is Jeremiah Wright, who explained that God loves a white racist as much as a black Christian. That sounds to me like a God who favors equality and loves justice and freedom.
The gospel (good news) is both personal and social. That’s what I’m saying about racism. There’s personal (individual) racism, and there’s racism so ingrained in American society that we don’t even recognize it. You don’t recognize your own narrowness (or maybe you rejoice in it), but as for me, I’d like to have sisters and brothers of all colors and religions.
Sorry, Bookworm, ExP thinks he’s been sent to straighten us out (especially me). Well, I escaped that kind of dogma. Praise the Lord.
And good night.
Okay, I’ve read the text of the ‘God D*mn America’ Speech. Wright was NOT quoting when he said that. I’ve read the entire speech, and to say that it is misunderstood because it is taken out of context is inaccurate in my opinion. Not to go all Dr. Suess on you or anything, but he said what he meant and he meant what he said.
I wrote a very long response to this thread, and the internet ate it, which may be a good thing
I will try again in the morning. DQ left a comment on my blog to which I will reply in the morning. (It gets late early on the east coast, so I’m going to bed.
And cold. 38 degrees, so we had to bring some plants inside.) In the meantime, I have several posts on my blog concerning Jeremiah Wright and the Black Church. FYI, ExP is no authority on the Black Church. Neither am I, but I have had a course at the graduate level in Black Religion.
If interested, look under April 2008 and find the appropriate entries. (There’s lots of poetry stuff there, too.) Please feel free to comment or not. I try to reply to all comments.
Goodnight everyone.
@ Helen
I am personally doing all I can to rid our nation of this horrible disease that can be called our nation’s original sin
I am not a churchgoer, but isn’t the point about original sin that it cannot be eliminated, cannot be eradicated? That original sin is endemic to the human condition? Chasing one’s tail…
When you call racism a disease, we have a fundamental disagreement. We have reached the stage where many diseases can be eliminated: polio and smallpox, for example. Deaths from yellow fever, from cholera, meningitis, for example, are but a pittance of what they once were. So we can do the same with racism, you imply.
The medical model for treating disease assumes that there is a disease agent, the pathogen, that comes from outside the human body. Identify the pathogen, prevent its contact with humans, and you can prevent occurrence of the disease. By contrast, racism did not come from outer space, nor from a microbe. Racism comes from inside our human souls. While racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism varies according to time and according to society, no human society anywhere has been entirely free of it. Call it fear of the stranger, if you will. I certainly saw enough evidence of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism when I worked outside the US to realize we had no monopoly whatsoever on that score. In fact, we came off pretty well.
While we can reduce racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism, and we certainly have reduced it in the last 50 years in the US, we can no more eliminate the “disease” of racism/bigotry/ethnocentrism than we can eliminate the “diseases” of irresponsibility, murder, robbery, adultery, illegitimacy, avarice, anger, self-righteousness, pride, or parochialism.
While we can reduce racism, it is a misreading of the human condition to assume that humans can treat racism as if it were a disease foreign to themselves. The disease of racism. I am reminded of the nonsense of “scientific socialism.” Applying a medical model to a moral and social problem is a gross example of reductionism that is bound to fail.
That being said, I am not about to go out and put my white sheets on again. ( Tom Lehrer lyrics , “I Wanna Go Back to Dixie”)
In order to have spent 20 years with Rev. Wright, Obama would have either have had to
1) agree with him
2) be scarily oblivious
3) be willing to ally himself with someone espousing these repugnant views to advance his career.
Multiple choice quiz. More than one answer possible.
Any answer reveals either a hopelessly morally compromised or incompetant candidate.
Good night, Helen! Good night, John-boy!
P.S. I do see where Wright was quoting on the ‘chickens come home to roost’ statement. But I don’t understand the point of saying it was a quote or that it was taken out of context, as he CLEARLY agreed with the sentiment and thought we were getting what we deserved. He got quite excited about it, really.
Helen
I finally agree with something you said “ExP is no authority - PERIOD! He doesn’t get to say who are G-d’s children, no matter what books he’s reading.
BOOKWORM:
FREE ME FROM MODERATION, PLEASE. #45
HelenL - I’ve tried to simply sit back and observe the discourse in order to better understand your point of view. However, now is the time to step in and if I come across as harsh, my apologies in advance.
Your comment “white people are either racists of recovering racists. I’m a recovering racist” reveals much about you. One thing I notice is that you have a very poor sense of history, as Ymarsaker has already pointed out. There was nothing necessarily unique or unduly vicious about “white slavery” or “white racism”. You cannot have traveled much of the world if you think Americans are uniquely racist - I have traveled much of the world and I can assure you that the United States is a model of racial enlightenment compared to the vast majority of peoples and countries.
Secondly, white Americans didn’t “bring” slavery to this country - the resident native Americans were already quite practiced at it. Never mind the Maya and Aztec…I live in Illinois. As Fr. Marquette described when he first met them, the primary source of economic activity by my state’s namesake tribe was slave trading between tribes. He also noted how they punished slaves and wives for infractions by cutting off their noses and ears. Some tribes, such as the Huron and Polynesians, were noted for eating their slaves when times were bad. Slavery was practiced by virtually all people all over the world and chattel slavery continues in some parts of Africa and the Middle East today. Though illegal, sex slavery still continues pretty much worldwide. If you want a global sense of perspective on racism and slavery, instead of wallowing in your own perceived sins as a white person, I strongly recommend that you read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s (an African American) discourses on the subjects, which is based on scholarly research rather than emotion.
Third, about my own family history. Only a small part of my family was even in the United States at the time of the Civil War and they were Germans who fought with the Union. My other family members came much later. Those “white” people at the time of the Civil War lost 700,000 dead (in a population of only about 20 million) - never mind the number maimed and rendered destitute - paying for the sins of slavery. No other country has paid such a price to fight and defeat what was a world institution of slavery. You, my dear, have paid no such price and, fortunately, you don’t need to. Meanwhile, today, only about 50% of blacks can trace their ancestry to that period. Say what you will, I don’t believe that I and my own owe a dime’s worth of reparation or guilt to any black person that nurses grievances about their ancestors’ slavery 150 years ago. My word to them is to “get over it!”.
I am convinced that our race relations today would be in far better shape had it not been for the constant exploitive grievance mongering of Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Wright, your own preacher and other proto-Marxist race-baiters following the traditions of W.E.B Du Bois. Parts of the black community have far greater problems to deal with than perceived racism by whites and these race mongers have done their darnedest to make sure these problem not only don’t get addressed but get worse. In my hometown of Chicago, elderly blacks and children are being gunned down regularly by other members of their community and, other than flapping their gums and blaming white people, I haven’t noticed any of the race baiters like Jesse Jackson do much about it. Of course they wouldn’t - there’s no money in it. As far as I am concerned, it is these grievance mongers who have kept black people down. They are no better than the freed blacks who bought and sold their own people for a profit during the era of slavery.
You see, HelenL - for many of us, black and white, true “racism” is when you put people into neat little boxes based upon the color of their skin. This is what Martin Luther King was really getting at and what made him a national hero for making us confront. To that point, in your discourses, I note you neatly define “us” as black or white and attribute our worldviews, opinions and mindset based thereon. You may have studied MLK’s talk, but you never learned the walk. Frankly, I don’t think you appreciate how offensive and frankly (forgive me here, I do not mean to anger) racist a perspective you project. If you feel a need to wallow in your own perceived racism (refer to quote above) - fine! However, don’t point your accusatory world view at the rest of “white” humanity. I think that you can be a better person than that.
Sadie, Well, okay, but the book he is reading, and quoting, is the Bible. Seems like a pretty good authority on the subject, doesn’t it?
“The Chickens Come Home to Roost” is a quote from Malcolm X.
see the speech http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm
Problem is you folks don’t know black history. Blacks folks know what’s a quote without Wright telling them.
More later.
Members of the “black church” speak out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pastors30apr30,1,875299.story?track=rss
Danny - A masterful post! Thank you for taking the time to write that. I enjoyed it.
Helen - Danny is absolutely correct and your problem is that he is using actual, documented history to make his point. Meanwhile, you are claiming that the black people in Wright’s church knew that “the chickens coming home to roost” was a quote from Malcolm X.
So what? What does that prove?? That Wright really didn’t mean what he was saying (that America deserved what it got on September 11th)? Then what was the point of Wright “quoting Malcolm X” if he did NOT agree with him?
Look, Helen - Wright was NOT quoting Malcolm X for two reasons:
1) When you quote someone, you are supposed to give that person credit. Somehow, somewhere, Wright got his Ph.D. He should be very aware of this. Being in a pulpit is NO excuse for not properly attributing something to someone.
2) More importantly, that idiom is as OLD AS DIRT!!!!! According to the Christine Ammer’s American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, the “chickens coming home to roost” was written by Robert Southey in 1809. Other sources believe that the idea of “chickens coming home to roost” is as old as Chaucer.
It doesn’t matter. The point is that Wright honestly believes that America is to blame for September 11th. He has said it over and over and Obama is just now getting around to disowning him.
Please.
Deana
I posted an Answer to Don Quixote at http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/answer-to-don-quixote/
Helen -
The discussion we are having is here, on Bookworm’s blog. Questions that are posted here should be answered here.
Why don’t you simply double post your answer so you address people’s questions in both places?
Deana
Don Q
It depends upon how one quotes from the Bible (in/out) of context. The word of G-d seems to be a subjective matter of interpretation from the reader and believer.
I took issue with quoting from the New Testament, which justifies one belief, but leaves other beliefs in the wind.
Helen,
When you pointed out that Rev. Wright was quoting someone else, I thought you were attempting to mitigate the offensiveness of what he said. I thought you were saying his words were taken out of context and don’t mean what you think they do.
However, having read your links, especially the Malcolm X link, it think it is pretty clear that I misunderstood you. The homework you assigned has done nothing to decrease the offensive nature of Rev. Wrights speeches…if anything, it does the opposite.
So I am left wondering what exactly it is that you are trying to convey about our misunderstanding of Rev. Wrights speeches?
Are you saying that when he said the chickens are coming home to roost that we are wrong to be offended, not because we don’t understand what he means but rather because we don’t understand that he is right? That we did deserve 9/11?
And when he says God D*mn America we are wrong to be offended, not because we don’t understand what he means, but rather because we have structured our country in such a way that God SHOULD d*mn it unless we overthrow our present government?
I forgot to ask about the racist part, but I guess I don’t have to. You have already been pretty clear on that point - we ARE all racists, etc., etc.
So blacks folks think AL Qaeda is like Malcom X’s operations in that they were both “chickens coming home to roost” due to America’s sins?
Danny, the LA Times article you linked to corroborates the 8:24 p.m. anecdote I had about my experience with a black church. The one I had contact with via a former job was a very impressive organization, a blessing to its community.
Okay Deana, Here’s what I posted to my Blog (but on my blog I have used bold type for emphasis. I cannot do that in a comment on Bookworm’s blog. That’s on reason I did it on my blog, rather than here):
Answer to Don Quixote
Hi DQ,
I don’t know where to start. I just left the URL for the Malcolm X speech at Bookworm’s blog. Here it is again. (only it vanished in transition)
.
Okay. You’re a lawyer, right? Now we all know lawyers use a specific kind of language in legal documents - the kind most of us, including lawyers, don’t speak conversationally. And we all know that black folks can speak among themselves so that white people catch only a bit of what they’re saying. In other words, groups of people (people in given professions, etc.) often use dialect, tone, or vocabulary that complicates communication with those outside the group. Literary criticism uses references to images that are useless unless one has read the work from which they come.
Black preaching (preaching in the slave tradition) includes several elements that make it different from white preaching. Black preachers use what’s called “set pieces” - parts of a sermon that are memorized - and combine them in various ways to make new sermons. These set pieces often included quoted material. Unlike white preachers who usually hold up the book from which these quotes are taken, black preachers do not. Black preachers (and some white preachers) borrow freely from one another. King’s “I have a dream” is a perfect example of a set piece. Not the whole speech, but the part where he deviates from his prepared text. Entire books have been dedicated to the study of King’s 1963 speech. You think I’m dodging the question. Come on lawyer.
What I’m saying is that when Wright’s congregation heard “chickens come home to roost,” they knew immediately that Wright was quoting Malcolm X. They knew what parts of the speech were quoted. Likely they had heard them before in other sermons, maybe by other preachers. What white people think is racially divisive is fact to black folks. Wright isn’t “breeding hate and racist discord”; he’s telling it like it is. And then, in a part of the sermon, I’m sure we didn’t hear, he gave an altar call and beckoned the sinners to bring their burdens to Jesus. Wright’s goal is reconciliation - sinner to Christ, black to white.
Not all churches with black pastors and black congregations are considered Black Churches in the historical sense. There are seven historic black denominations (elsewhere on this blog, maybe in a comment.)
**
Let’s try again. We have that proverbial partially filled water-glass. Is it half full or half empty? It’s both, but how we express it says something about us. Some Americans think that it’s half full: America isn’t perfect, but it’s the best nation our world has ever seen. Other Americans think it’s half empty: America is flawed, but with some very hard work she has the potential to become the best nation the world has ever seen. I think you are half-fuller, and Wright is a half-emptier. Who’s right? I say both are.
But the person who sees the glass as half empty speaks as a pessimist (from the point of view of the other, the optimist). The optimist screams that pessimists should be happy with what they have. The pessimist states what he sees as the flawed status quo. Does this mean he is without hope? I don’t think so. I see lots of room for discussion. There is more common ground than uncommon: Both groups love America. But one is more likely to be satisfied with the status quo than the other. Does that make the unsatisfied “evil”? Pointing out positive facts is “good,” but pointing out negative facts is “evil”?
**
Now let’s jump back to the racial issue and throw in the glass illustration. The whites are the optimists, who see America as doing “better” in race relations that ever before. They are right. The blacks are the pessimists who see that America has not yet achieved racial equality. This is over-simplified and stereotypical (in other words, only partially true). Some blacks fit the half full mold, and some whites fit the half empty one. Combine that with conservative and liberal views, different religious understandings, etc., and no wonder we don’t know what a person means by what he says.
But it’s too easy to call everyone who doesn’t see things the way we do a liar. It just isn’t true. It’s like all the folks who scream I live by emotion only I’m the one who knew that “chickens come home to roost” was quoted, and I knew where. That’s a fact. It’s a fact they didn’t know. Let’s not play “my facts are better than your facts,” okay?
I do not know the source of all that Jeremiah Wright said, but I do not think he is a liar. If he said he was quoting, I think he was. But it has been very hard to hear Wright in context. Primary sources are the best way to make valid judgments on what is and isn’t said. But if we are unfamiliar with the subject matter, we might need some secondary sources as well. When I wanted to find Malcolm X’s speech, I used Google. But I had two facts to go on.
**
Another aside. Do lawyers ever criticize other lawyers? Other than the public battles in the court room. Do one lawyer ever question another lawyers judgment? I bet they do. Do lawyers ever question the law? Poets criticize other poets. Historians make a living criticizing other historians. Okay. Do American have a right to criticize America? Do you? Why? Is Wright an American? How did he loose this right? Why is he “evil” by offering a view whereby dialog may bring change and change may bring us closer to equality?
What Wright offers America is hope.
Helen,
Malcolm X didn’t use the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” in connection with 9/11; Rev. Wright did. It makes no difference whether Wright used a phrase originated by someone else, or that black people would understand the reference. The point is that he chose that phrase because it expressed his point of view. How on earth does nit picking on the issue of who originated the phrase, or whether it was a quote or reference to some historical figure alter the fact that by using that phrase, Wright is saying that America deserved 9/11? That’s the problem. Nothing else.
Sadie, (and HelenL as an Aside),
As DQ says, the Book I study and believe is the Holy Bible.. New and Old Testaments.
About God’s Children –
Agreed, I don’t get to say who are God’s children but the Bible spells it out quite emphatically. If you do not believe either the Old or New Testament, I understand — and that is your prerogative. I would never try to force you to believe God. But when the God of the universe speaks, we should all listen.
Please let me clarify my statement. There are a couple of statements in the Old Testament where God speaks of Israel as His children and in others of “His people.” So these are the children of Israel who believed the prophecy that their Messiah would come. These are likewise Children of God.
We Christians belive that same Messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament says:
1 Samuel 15:1
Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over His people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
Speaking to Israel in Deuteronony 14:1
Ye are the children of the Lord your God:
Wright has spoken against Israel, white Christians, in favor of Hamas (in one of their Sunday bulletins), in favor of Louis Farahkan (Muslim) who condemns Israel, the Jews and America. Great friends and associates — and Obama just now found out?
As I said in my original post Wright is WRONG!
Even when we ignore Him or pervert His words, God still loves the whole world — specifically, you and me — all of us…. John 3:16
And Helen… you know, since you say you read my Blog, that I have never and will never make racial slurs as you accuse. False accusations will gain for you neither friends nor followers.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
Judyrose, I agree that Wright was saying the US deserved 9/11. The problem is, thoughts of the “rugged US individual”tend to make us believe he meant the victims got what they deserved. Wright didn’t say that. He was talking about the US governing policies not the people in the buildings, who did nothing that morning except go to work. Black and white died together in the insanity of 9/11. But could the events have been prevented? Wright thinks so. So do I.
Violence begets violence; only nonviolent actions can bring about the possibility of peace.
Jack, you don’t have to make racial slurs to be a racist. All good men have to do to allow evil to prevail is nothing. That’s what you’re doing about racism. You are trying to make this about your Biblical view. This is about race, not about you trying to convert the Jews, namely Sadie. Back off!!!
Well, Helen, we disagree yet again. I still maintain that this is an accurate equation:
non-violent people + al qaeda = dead non-violent people
Thinking that America deserved 9/11 and thinking that it perhaps could have been prevented are two different things. You just will not condemn this man no matter what he says.
And as for making a distinction between whether America deserved 9/11 or the people in the WTC deserved 9/11, that’s just obfuscation. Save your two-step for the dance floor.
Judy,
“non-violent people + al qaeda = dead non-violent people”= martyrs
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Martin Luther King, Jr., speech in Detroit, June 23, 1963.
No, I will not condemn Rev. Wright. I like him.
The distinction I have made is the difference I’ve been talking about since the first time I commented on Bookworm’s blog. It makes all the difference. Life is social as well as personal. Both matter but they are different.
Helen,
You said”Violence begets violence; only nonviolent actions can bring about the possibility of peace.”
You know full well that is not true — without the violence of Patriotic Americans against the racist Nazi’s you would be speaking German (or Russian or Japanese) right now. BookWorm has written at length, in thanks, for Americans liberating Germany. I agree.
Also, you must know Sadie personally — I do not and I did not know she is Jewish. If she is, good for her!! Nothing at all wrong about that — my Savior is Jewish. I have no intention of “converting” Sadie. but again you should know (as the great Bible scholar) that God loves the whole world (His creation) and wants everyone to believe in Jesus to become His children. Some choose to do so, some choose otherwise. Their choice. No one can force such a decision.
BTW, If you have a recording of a clear Biblical Gospel message and invitation from Jeremiah Wright, please send it to me.
I asked the same of you when you stated that you are an ML King scholar. You made the same claim about King, but you never could find any such information.
Wright is a political person — King was a political person (different politics). Their choice.
Wright poses as a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet he is a preacher of racism, hate and is stirring up racial strife. Obama had Wright as a “mentor and friend” for 20 years. Obama is indeed a “bad judge of character” as he himself claims. (Just as are Obama’s devotees).
“A bad judge of character” does not make a great resume’ for one seeking the White House.
In Christ eternally,
ExP(Jack)
Helen, if you think being a martyr is better than defending yourself, then we probably should not continue to waste any more of each other’s time. “People who are willing to die for what they believe in” includes those who are willing to die fighting for what they believe in. I know you believe that fighting includes talking. That’s true. But where we part company is over the idea that there are people who will not talk to you, or if they do talk, will lie to you until you go away believing you have made progress (Jimmy Carter, anyone?) while they make preparations to kill you later. But like I said, waste of time.
Jack,
Please stop telling me what I must know. You said, “You know full well that is not true.. . .” Do you know what I think better than I do. And as for your sarcastic, “great Bible scholar,” that should lead me to “know . . . that God loves the whole world (His creation) and wants everyone to believe in Jesus to become His children.”
Bible scholars, like lawyers and historians and poets, fight all the time about what verse mean. And when did I claim to be a great Bible scholar?
I don’t know Sadie (or that she is Jewish) but she and I agree. We are all the children of God. It is wonderful to believe we are God’s chosen. It is foolish to believe that God chose only us.
I have a recording of MLK giving an altar call on a cassette tape that accompanies the book “A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration From the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.” edited by Clayborne Carson. New York: Warner Books, 1998. You can probably get it through Amazon.com.
It is difficult to hear these because many churches turn the recorder off just after the sermon. I guess, they want to respect the privacy of the worshipers.
I have not heard an altar call by Rev, Wright, but it might be different. MLK was a progressive Baptist, while Wright belongs to the Church of Christ.
Neither Wright nor King was a political person first. King always insisted he was a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ above all else. I don’t know what Wright says about this. Neither of these men nor me gives the gospel to your satisfaction. But in the end, it’s about satisfying God not you. Or is there something I ought to know about that too.
I believe that every Christian must be prepared to answer when asked “the reason for our hope.” On this blog, no one has asked me. And it’s my guess, no one asked you. That’s just a guess, you ol’ nemesis.
Poor Helen. I must be difficult holding up your side of every argument all alone on this site!You need to recruit some like-minded friends to stop by here after they visit your site.
Helen:
Not to worry about conversion here. I am sticking to the original KFC recipe for prayer and thought.
You have all spent a lot of time dissecting Wright and have overlooked the real matter, which is still Obama and his lack of good judgment. Since none of us know any of the candidates personally, we are left to make decisions by observation, voting records, by the company they keep, some personal history and most importantly what they say and how it backs up their commitments on the record or not.
Until Obama is sure of what he believes, how can any voter believe what he says.
Wright said that Obama must act as a politician.
In a political move, Obama has tried to distance himself from Wright. Obama said he didn’t believe everything Wright said in his sermon excerpts and speeches of the past few days. He didn’t identify the specific things with which he didn’t agree.
“I think Jeremiah Wright explained perfectly that the attack is on the black church. At this time, I must say I understand Wright more than I do Obama (unless Wright is right about that, too, that Obama - as a politician - must distance himself from Wright to gain votes) in which case I just like Wright more than Obama. Wright is telling the truth. Obama may not be.” (see my #8 above)
Wright is free to say whatever he wants (bound only by his relationship to God).
Obama, however, must say things that will attract votes. Obama knows exactly what he believes. He’s just acting like a politician, just like Wright said.
Obama must distance himself from Wright (and therefore the black church) to get votes. Obama isn’t confused about anyone’s character. He’s saying what he has to. That’s why I said I like Wright’s honesty better than Obama’s political dodge-ball tactics. Obama didn’t invent the political lie. But if he wants to be elected, he has to play the game.
This isn’t rocket science. The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church so Obama is distancing himself and talking “family values.” Like blacks don’t have any. LOL
And I would say too, that your Parents must have eventually been happy that there were American soldiers willing to sacrifice all and be violent to liberate Germany.
Sweet talk never have made the grade,. ie Neville Chamberlain.
ExP(Jack)
The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church
Nor will it ever be ready for such tomfoolery. Black Jews…. White Romans…. (love my garlic, sorry Reverend)…I don’t mind the Black Jews part: “let my people go” et al. But when he later goes on about Unjust Israel. Do I then conclude Unjust Black Jews? It seems a bit of a contradiction on the Reverend’s part to identify w Biblical Jews, then go on about Unjust Israel and praise Louis Farrakhan. Talking about loving one’s enemies while one’s tone of voice is dripping with hatred. Sorry, this here dumb white racist ain’t buyin’ no way no how that there Bridge in Brooklyn, at least not with greenbacks. I would be willing to pay for that Bridge in Brooklyn with Monopoly money, however. That’s all the Good Reverend is worth.
so Obama is distancing himself and talking “family values.” Like blacks don’t have any. LOL
A 69 % illegitimacy rate among blacks might make one conclude that such values are far from being universally held. A similar conclusion could be drawn from the 31% illegitimacy rate among whites –increasing while the black rate is stable.
2008 Statistical Abstract of the US: 85 - Births to Teens, Unmarried Mothers, and Births With Low Birth Weight, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 2005.(births section)
From another perspective, it doesn’t matter anymore what Obama says. All that Obama has said in the last two months regarding the Reverend Wright was done with regard to creating a certain effect. I never got the impression that he was speaking from the heart. From these escapades I get the impression that it is impossible for Obama to speak from the heart, because he has none. Obama is the Tin Man come to life, all hollow inside.
>>The white world isn’t ready for Wright of the Black Church >>
This is such BS. Black Liberation Theology is Marxism disguised as religion. Obama is a Saul Alinsky disciple who like his original mentor has used religion to gain entry in a community that is vulnerable to hate mongering. The hate and dissatisfaction is necessary to agitate rebellion, which is necessary for revolution - “change” as Obama calls it.
Blacks will achieve equality as they earn it. Before 1960, something like 50% of blacks were below the poverty line. Now it’s more like 25%. But no one can _give_ a man equality - equality is earned.
You (Helen) say we’re racist - that _all_ whites are racist. Well, I disagree. If it is as you say, then there is no option other than a race war.
How else do you see equality coming about?
You _do_ realize how condescending you are, don’t you?