Probably the most disturbing part for me as a Christian:

Rev. Wright on Monday said criticism of him marked “an attack on the black church,”

Not only is the good Rev. making himself the spokesman for all black people who go to church, he is separating the Church into races. This is not remotely scriptural.

I'm not sure if you have seen the Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Wright's full speech that he gave to the National Press Club. It is the tragic sign of the times that the ongoing commentary from the corporate pundits who choose to highlight over and over again snippets from speeches that taken out of context appear bombastic, ego-maniacal and loony to "enlighten" the American public do the man and the public a grave disservice.  There is precious little dialog about this man's record of generosity and community involvement, or his encyclopedic knowledge of biblical and American history within the matrix of the Black religous experience. This man is a scholar and his views are framed by his vast research and life experience. He has uplifted his community through his actions. He has served his country honorably. He received several standing ovations for his comments at the same National Press Club speech for which he has been castigated in the media for the question and answer segment edits performed by the viscious and politically motivated. This is the smear campaign from the ultra-conservative element in our society that will stop at nothing to make sure nothing gets in the way of feeding the military complex beast that preys on a cowed and miseducated population.

The funny thing is that neither Wright or Obama threw the other under the bus. The corporate media threw them both under the bus in an effort to prevent ordinary hard working people from having a real voice in their government. It is no surprise to see great people with vision trampled by the powerful and morally bankrupt. Look to Ghandi, King, Debs and Jesus as examples of what happens to voices of reason and compassion in this world who dare to speak up and try to lift the common man from the gutter.

I think the downfall of Rev. Wright is his streamlined focus on "Black Issues." He has apparently done great things for his community. His Black community. His theology is colored (no pun intended) by his staunch afrocentric thinking (Jesus was Black, The Black Church).

I wholeheartedly admire his distinguished service to his country, but any way you slice it, the guy looks like a looney. I have read several of his sermons, not just the snippets. His outright racism and anti-government views are well-documented. Given the political bent of many of his sermons, the church should have lost its tax-exempt status years ago.

I don't see any "downfall."  He retired after a very successful career, you *KNOW* he's going to sell lots of his book with FauxNews' help, and  "now he's got the fame that he was searching for," as the song goes.

.

*ALL* churches should've lost their tax-exempt status years ago, witbee.  But Wright's done nothing to jeopardize his church's status any more than mainstream (white) churches have.

You're right. "Downfall" was the wrong term. Maybe "shortcoming" is better.

And FYI, I have never attended a church meeting where politics was part of the sermon. I've also never attended a "white" church. 

I've attended plenty.  And I've attended plenty of churches where everyone else in the pew was "white."  (I put that in quotes because they were mostly pinkish-brown.)

.

The "black churches" started up *BECAUSE* they weren't allowed into the white ones.

If you're in the business of uniting people, there are no snippets in your sermons that can be taken out of context to make you appear a racist or a hater.  If you are in the business of dividing the races, and stirring up hatred, then you don't care.  You let it fly and let the chips fall where they may. 

If you're in *ANY* business you're going to try some strategies that aren't going to further that business.  If you condemn Wright on that basis, you condemn Fallwell, Robertson, and most especially Hagee and his stooge, McBush.

.

Your last two lines describe George W. Bush to a "T".

I didn't condemn him, I pointed out that if you're in the business of uniting people, it is reflected in your comments, even ones taken out of context.  If you are in the business of dividing people, it is reflected in your comments, even ones taken out of context.  Fallwell and Robertson have both been heavily invested in the business of dividing people (with a few exceptions in both cases, like when Falwell volunteered to meet with log cabin Republicans to listen to their criticisms about comments he made about them).

Furthermore,  I have posted a blog in which I site Bush's number one failure as his failure to be the uniter he promised to be while he was campaigning. 

How ironic. Few institutions are less democratic than a religious one. Yet, religious spokespeople will arrogantly and loudly proclaim they know what's best for a democracy.

And they're nearly always wrong about it.  Which is another reason  why religion and government need to be kept *FAR* apart.

So, are you saying that Wright should remain mum on issues pertaining to government? 

Not at all.  Just that nobody in government should base decisions on what he says.  Or what he says Jesus says.

.

And anyone who opens a political argument with "It says in the Bible..." ought to be laughed away from the microphone.

Look, religions as a whole are terribly divisive.  Witness the separate "Christianists only" prayer events in Bakersfield.  They can't even pray with the Buddhists and Sikhs for a single day?

BLT, watch the Bill Moyers interview, and the speech he gave at the National Press Club and then tell me that this guy is a hater, or is prejudiced. To not play the entire sermon he gave where he fully explains to his congregation the context of where damn and condemn came, and who he quoted from our own government speaking on television, and leave the impression that this was a rant strictly against America is ethically reprehensible.  The sermon was not about any of that, but edited and repeated to make it seem that way. 

In the same way that during WWII a second of film shot of Hitler was clipped, looped and made to look like he was dancing a jig:  for black propaganda purposes.

BLT, watch the Bill Moyers interview, and the speech he gave at the National Press Club and then tell me that this guy is a hater, or is prejudiced.

I saw most of the Billy Moyers interview, and parts of speech.  Do I need to listen to every single word of everything he's ever said in his entire life to form an opinion?  Like I said, if you're a person committed to uniting people, you don't even have any scintilla of a statement that, if taken out of context, could be considered racist or hateful. 

Yes, I believe him to be a hater and a prejudiced man, though that's probably an understatement.  Obviously Obama feels the same way, or he wouldn't be trying so hard to distance himself from the guy.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with being in the minority, but if you don't believe he's a racist, you are probably among a very small minority. 

Then I proudly acclaim my minority status, and you would be wrong. I am in the minority because I actually viewed the content of these two public presentations, and also watched the entire sermon given on September 16, 2001. Not a huge percentage of Americans can lay claim to those facts, which is why the smear works. I also don't believe you have watched the interview, or the speech at the National Press Club. You could not come away from either of these presentations and express your posted point of view. I believe you watched some clips edited by those you endorse in political point of view. It is always difficult to argue with ignorance.

I didn't watch all of the 9/16/01 speach, however, I did see the two recent presentations. Overall, I didn't find it divisive (I am curious about the AIDS statement though). If anything, it was mostly explanatory of his past statements. He did put on a show but that is what most Black pastors do. They are about showmanship. Also, clergy will usually admit that politics (or democracy) lay low on their list of priorities. Their concerns are about humanity, equality, and spirituality.

Then I proudly acclaim my minority status, and you would be wrong. I am in the minority because I actually viewed the content of these two public presentations, and also watched the entire sermon given on September 16, 2001. Not a huge percentage of Americans can lay claim to those facts, which is why the smear works.

Is it better to watch everything, with the same old biased perspective, or to have missed some of the garbage that he said, but form an opinion on the stuff you did see?

I also don't believe you have watched the interview, or the speech at the National Press Club.

I said I watched much of the interview, but it was the original interview, not a summary of it, or a news program.  If you don't believe me, it's not my problem. 

You could not come away from either of these presentations and express your posted point of view. I believe you watched some clips edited by those you endorse in political point of view. It is always difficult to argue with ignorance.

It is also difficult to argue with somebody who thinks everybody who doesn't agree with everything he believes, or doesn't see everything he sees, is ignorant.  You can listen to every word he's ever spoken, and if you're listening with a narrow, biased perspective, your just as bad, if not worse off than someone who missed some of those words. 

"Is it better to watch everything, with the same old biased perspective, or to have missed some of the garbage that he said, but form an opinion on the stuff you did see?"  

I am not quite sure what you mean, but I do find it offensive that people who don't take the time to educate themselves fully on a matter continue to think that their uninformed opinion carries any weight.  I have seen this type of discussion played out many times on this blog where people criticize Michael Moore documentaries, not based on seeing any of them, but prattle on informed only by what someone with a media agenda had to say. If you want to continue to have others do your thinking for you be my guest.   

"It is also difficult to argue with somebody who thinks everybody who doesn't agree with everything he believes, or doesn't see everything he sees, is ignorant.  You can listen to every word he's ever spoken, and if you're listening with a narrow, biased perspective, your just as bad, if not worse off than someone who missed some of those words."

Your statement above is a ludicrous projection. You and I are not going to agree on much in this world, of that I am certain. That is beside the point. Your opinion can differ from mine, and I am fine with that, but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge the difference between someone who has done the research from one who refuses to do so. You could learn a lot by listening and reading a variety of perspectives. One of the most fascinating remarks that the Reverend Wright made is the different viewpoints men hold toward God, and how their theology, anthropology and sociology are framed by their vantage points within a given society.  People are different, not better than or worse than, is Reverend Wright's message.

Your statement above is a ludicrous projection.

Your statement that my statement is a ludicrous projection is a projection.

but at least have the courtesy to acknowledge the difference between someone who has done the research from one who refuses to do so.

You mean someone who claims to have done the research.  We've both apparently "done the research".  It's just that you've made the presumption that my research was not extensive enough.  Someone else could look at what you've said you've heard from him, and also conclude that it's not enough. 

You could learn a lot by listening and reading a variety of perspectives.

Did you wake up feeling a bit condescending this morning?