Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Wright says criticism is attack on black church
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright says criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.source article on Yahoo
I read the article twice before deciding to start the flamewar in here.
My problem here is that rather than defend what he said he is turning an attack against him personally and trying to make it into a racial issue (playing the race card). My understanding of the issue with Rev Wright is that the words he uses from the pulpit are both political in nature and racist. (I have only heard snippets from some sermons so I am not knowledgeable of the sermons from the rest of his career.)
I would have liked to have heard him defend the quotes we have heard (his voice, hard to say you did not say something unless you can produce the full recording and a point in the sermon where you say 'some people say this...' or words to that affect. Instead he is taking an attack on himself personally and trying to turn it into something it is not: racism.)
This reminds me of the Willy Horton attacks on Dukakis in '88. Those were not racial (Horton was black), they were about Dukakis's serious blunder in allowing a murderer to go free from prison on "weekend passes". He ran for it and committed a very serious crime while he was out.
I don't care if Rev Wright is black, white or whatever. I do feel his words from the pulpit are not the words I expect to hear from a man of the cloth. (Didn't Obama make a speech about "just words"?)
Seriously, either defend what you say or don't say it. Don't hide behind the adolescent "everybody is doing it" excuse.
Comments
The point he is making is that the nature of black churches are significantly varied from most other Christian/Catholic services. The sermons tend to be preseneted at a higher level of "excitement" in order to stir reaction and unification behind a cause, that is typical of every church I have ever set foot in. In these sermons (and obviously, not all of them, or the media would have had a great deal more cannon fodder), there was a rallying cry that Rev. Wright was trying to convene to his parishoners. We might not like every word that man says, but it is obvious on listening to the entire sermon that the man has done his homework and has come to a fairly reasonable conclusion. His words of "anger" come as an emotional climax to end speeches that preach against the injustices of world. How ignorant are you? How are these two even remotely equated? Being a priest, pastor, or any other religious officiant does not exempt anyone from hate or stupidity. In fact, it is more of a problem as these people potentially have a mindless following who seek their aid and guidance. I have heard hate being preached in churches, both Catholic and Protestant. If you do not expect it, then you really have not been listening. Just as an example, think of how many churches that you know that are openly supportive of gay rights.
His speeches do not in and of themselves require defense. The only problematic portions are the emotionally climactic segments, which are more common in the tradition he refers to and is a fairly resonable defense. He is not making any adolescent excuses.
I would feel the words spoken in those sermons are wrong no matter what the race of the church.
"No No No not god bless America, God Damn Amercia."
"The chickens have come home to roost"
You'll see the quote they misquote, and then show the quote in full context. This is a truly educational example of how the media today is totally Fucked up.
Video 1: His words do make sense in the context of what he is saying but why is he going on a political tirade in church? Out of all the churches I have attended in my life I have never heard a priest/pasteur go on a political tirade. This might be because I typically go to churches for small communities where the membership covers all political spectrums.
I take that back. I did go to one church where a new minister took over for one who had been there for years. He had been a conservative while the replacement was a "New York times" liberal. I say "New York Times" because she always referenced that paper at least four or five times during her sermon. That church quickly lost about half of its membership.
Politics does not belong in the church.
Umm... both links are to the same video.
Anyhow, Churches can talk about politics, they just can't endorse a particular candidate.
Sorry Steve, Churches have all sorts of politics, have you ever been on a board at a church ^_^
Also, it really depends on the church you go to, I hang out occasionally at the Unitarian Fellowship which is extremely active on the gay rights/Universal Health care and Peace movements. It's extremely hard to avoid Politics if your church does any sort of social outreach or strives for social change.
I took it as my job to say, "we don't have the money for that, don't do it," at the meetings. Most of the other board members did not like that approach. They were used to just spending money and using special accounting tricks to make it all work.
They were not exactly illegal tricks it was just a case of where one group would have several thousand dollars in their "account" but their account was actually empty because the money had been used somewhere else and the other account now showed a negative balance. When I took over it was real bad...
Anyhow, the point is, how is anyone ever going to be able to say anything of any note if they have to worry about being quoted out of context. Like Obama's "Bittergate" comment (why do we put Gate on every damn thing that goes on in a campaign). If people heard the whole speech instead of just the small sound bite they would not be offended.
I say "Gee, I really hate when those KKK members said "Lets go beat up some black people"
The news the next day, Cremlian said "Lets go beat up some black people" details at 11.
Just because you can patch it up easily doesn't mean they won't keep trying to poke at bricks in your wall.
Thanks Steve, for filling me in there...... Obviously I knew it was all connected to Watergate and was complaining that every flap a politician has is somehow labeled on the same level as Watergate.
These sort of things are not going to be easy to refute, why do you think people are having so much trouble refuting it today. Look at those Sermons. No one is going to play the 10 minute sermon on TV to show that when those statements are placed in context they are not talking about how much he hates America. Not to mention people who pass around this stuff, are not going to fact check it to figure out if they are getting the whole story. When people hear someone say "God Damn America" they don't look for context, we have not been trained to look at context. We have been taught to say "WTF mate, why are you hating on America, look more examples of why black people should not be president" You might think I'm going over the top but I've had this argument with at least 4 or 5 people IN PERSON.
I'm not really sure what is going on, All I know is when Newt Gringrich say "I think Wright is trying to screw Obama" then who knows what is going on.
Newt Gingrich
However at least from most of the interviews I heard in person, they didn't sound bad. So I'll have to give the benefit of the doubt at this point. Obama will have to make a speech or respond in some way just so this doesn't continue. Ugh.
When he made that comment about Obama "doing what politicians do" he stabbed the Obama campaign right in the heart!
This has been a very weird time in politics. Last week we had McCain call out the GOP in North Carolina for airing "racist" ads only to have Obama say that the ads were not racist but legitimate issues! Then to have Rev Wright throw Obama under the bus with the "what politicians do" comment! Now we have Obama saying that maybe he did not know Wright as well as he thought he did?
This can not end well for the Obama camp. The Clinton camp will have a field day with this. They might even say:
"If Obama can't tell the moral character of his own preacher, who he had a close personal relationship with for twenty years, how can he be the leader of the free world? How many other "close personal friends" does Obama have that he does not know?"
The "If so-and-so can't tell the moral character of his preacher" argument might not sit so well with Catholics who trusted their priests only to find that they had been involved in shenanigans.
Wright is completely off base here and has swiftly moved into the Al Sharpton camp of "everything you say against a black guy is an attack on all blacks and you're a racist, you white devil." Nothing said against him has anything to do with black churches in general. Oh, and now are we allowed to refer to churches as "black" and "white?" Or is that still racist? My church is one of the ones he was talking about being straight-laced and boring (including the clapping on the down beat), but we have a large Hispanic population. So...are we still a white or European church?
I was going to say that the boss "has power of you and your future" but, if you are going to church than you likely believe that God (and his representative) also have power over you.
The boss position is more of a "captive audience" position simply because changing jobs is not as easy as changing churches for most people.
However, I will admit that this is one area where I fall down, not having ever been an active member of a church, so I can't say with certainty. But it seems to me like many people are very, very loyal to their specific churches, and not just the religion or even pastor.
So from my experience people seem to be more loyal to their pastor than anything else, if they like that pastor.
Obama is really a closet atheist anyhow.
Also, I wouldn't call it "showing a very specific anti-Christian bias." Merely respect to the other religions who have nobody here as far as anyone knows to represent and defend their religion. With that in mind I see no problem with voicing one's opinion about Christianity, because people who do believe in Christianity on this board can then defend and correct the made statements.
And who are you to decide that off-topic comments are weak? I see nowhere in the rules anything related to anything off-topic, I however do see regulations on how one must properly quote someone else.
*rolls eyes*