Obama outraged by Wright's comments

[Amelia]

(Breaking News - Developing story)

Obama outraged by Wright's comments

Candidate calls ex-pastor's Monday appearance a 'spectacle'

The Associated Press

April. 29, 2008

HICKORY, N.C. - Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday.

Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.

There wasn't anything constructive about it yesterday," said Obama. "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth and I can't construct something positive out of that."

"At a certain point if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it, in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough, continued Obama.

"That's a show of disrespect to me, it is also I think an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign."

[John317]

I agree with Obama, and I'm glad that it he has finally come out strongly about this issue. I think one of the problems he will have is due to his delay in doing this. Americans wonder how he could go all those years and not realize this about Jeremiah Wright. It would be about like Mrs. Clinton just now deciding to divorce Bill. The fact is that Jeremiah Wright has not recently said anything that contradicts the ideas that he has always held, so it seems a bit self-serving for Obama to be saying these things now. Does Obama seriously want us to believe that his eyes are just now seeing something about Wright that he did not see before? If so, what is it? Obama has not said. This makes me wonder about Obama's insight and judgment about other people.

I would really like to know how other people on CA feel about Jeremiah Wright's teachings. Up to this point, a number have described Wright's outrageous beliefs about America as reasonable from the standpoint of black Americans. Now we are hearing from Obama that this is not true-- that Wright does not represent the truth about the American black community and church. I agree with that and have been saying this all along.

Obama says, rightly, that Wright's words are offensive to Americans, including black Americans. Wright claims that this is all about an "attack on the black church," etc., but that clearly is not true, and Obama admits as much.

[Dr. Shane]

I suspect Obama went to the church because he had friends there and the church was politically active in the community which gave him a launching pad for his own political career. I see nothing wrong with that.

I also believe he went to the church because of the outreach it did in the community by helping the poor and homeless. I see nothing wrong with that.

I believe he did receive spiritual insight about Christianity from the church and it wasn't all politics. Much of that insight probably came from Wright himself. Everyone here knows I am very political and have strong political opinions but I suspect many here that disagree with me politically do not question my relationship with Christ. I see Pastor Wright the same way. While his politics are terribly offensive, he may well have a good grasp on the gospel which Obama appreciated. I see nothing wrong with that.

I have no problem with Obama having stayed in the church. He earlier stated that Pastor Wright was like a weird uncle. I see his comments and behavior consistent with that.

[Kountzer]

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.

—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals

The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain. Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.” When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”

A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science

By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.

Following Doctors' Orders

It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment's name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years. The promise of recognition by a prestigious government agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for example, praised “the educational advantages offered our interns and nurses as well as the added standing it will give the hospital.” Nurse Rivers explained her role as one of passive obedience: “we were taught that we never diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the doctor's instructions!” It is clear that the men in the experiment trusted her and that she sincerely cared about their well-being, but her unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her moral judgment. Even after the experiment was exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt nothing ethical had been amiss.

One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillin was discovered in the 1940s—the first real cure for syphilis—the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication. During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: “So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.” The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization's Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiment involving human beings.

Blowing the Whistle

The story finally broke in the Washington Star on July 25, 1972, in an article by Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Her source was Peter Buxtun, a former PHS venereal disease interviewer and one of the few whistle blowers over the years. The PHS, however, remained unrepentant, claiming the men had been “volunteers” and “were always happy to see the doctors,” and an Alabama state health officer who had been involved claimed “somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.”

Under the glare of publicity, the government ended their experiment, and for the first time provided the men with effective medical treatment for syphilis. Fred Gray, a lawyer who had previously defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, filed a class action suit that provided a $10 million out-of-court settlement for the men and their families. Gray, however, named only whites and white organizations in the suit, portraying Tuskegee as a black and white case when it was in fact more complex than that—black doctors and institutions had been involved from beginning to end.

The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the appalling experiments performed by Nazi doctors on their Jewish victims during World War II. Yet in addition to the medical and racist parallels, the PHS offered the same morally bankrupt defense offered at the Nuremberg trials: they claimed they were just carrying out orders, mere cogs in the wheel of the PHS bureaucracy, exempt from personal responsibility.

The study's other justification—for the greater good of science—is equally spurious. Scientific protocol had been shoddy from the start. Since the men had in fact received some medication for syphilis in the beginning of the study, however inadequate, it thereby corrupted the outcome of a study of “untreated syphilis.”

In 1990, a survey found that 10 percent of African Americans believed that the U.S. government created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks, and another 20 percent could not rule out the possibility that this might be true. As preposterous and paranoid as this may sound, at one time the Tuskegee experiment must have seemed equally farfetched. Who could imagine the government, all the way up to the Surgeon General of the United States, deliberately allowing a group of its citizens to die from a terrible disease for the sake of an ill-conceived experiment? In light of this and many other shameful episodes in our history, African Americans' widespread mistrust of the government and white society in general should not be a surprise to anyone. —BB

[John317]

I find your comments about Obama very reasonable, but I'm sure you can understand if many Americans still have questions about Obama's relationship with Wright and about why he chose that particular church and continued to stay in it after he realized the views of its head pastor. Your explanations are reasonable, but Senator Obama should realize that a lot of Americans still have questions about how he decided to attend that church and how he decided to keep going even after Wright preached as he did about America and about whites. This was important for Obama to do if he wants Americans to view him as someone who sees things from the viewpoint of both races and can therefore help to bring them together.

After watching interviews of Wright and listening quite a bit to his sermons and talks, it's obvious to me that he's got serious problems. I find it hard to believe that Obama did not see these things long ago. I just think it was poor judgment on his part, as a US Senator, to lend Wright his financial support and the prestige of his office, to say nothing of subjecting his children to hearing Wright's nonsense and prejudicial/divisive views.

Now Obama is saying that the man he saw yesterday on TV is not the man he knew before. But I have not seen anything that Wright said that is not consistent with what he taught and believed before. Wright isn't saying anything surprising to those who knew him or who sat in his church all those years. I saw an interview with a pastor who has known Wright for many years, and he says Wright hasn't said anything lately that is out of character or that is different from what he has always believed and taught. As far as I can see, Obama is the only one who is expressing this sense of outrage. I wonder if the Senator's wife feels the same way Obama does.

Another thing that I have questions about is why there were those on CA that were basically defending what Wright believes about America? Do they now believe that Obama is wrong to distance himself from Wright and to condemn what Wright said?

I thought Wright had a right to preach whatever he wants, yet I wouldn't have stayed in that church, and I certainly would have let Wright know that I didn't agree with him. If I was Obama, and knew I was planning to run for the presidency, I would have let it be known publicly that I did not agree with Wright. It seems to me he should have been able to anticipate these kinds of problems resulting from his connections with Wright.

I still think that Obama is likely to be the Democratic nominee, and he could well be the next President. If he is, I will only wish him well and pray that God will direct his decisions.

[John317]

Old news and irrelevant to the question of Obama's decision to stay in Wright's church, unless someone wants to argue that Obama thinks the same way Wright does.

I am not saying the things that happened as you have reported them are irrelevant per se, but only irrelevant to the question of Obama's connection with Wright. I can understand what Wright says. I don't agree with those things, but I am very familiar and even sympathetic with the fears, anger and distrust that many blacks feel.

I think the US does need to have an honest, open dialogue about all matters of race, but this means that both white and black are to be totally honest about their feelings, and, it should be hoped, without being accused of being "racist." (Like Geraldine Ferrero was recently when she expressed herself honestly.)

I'm looking forward this August to being in the streets of Denver during the convention and interviewing the people there. Tens of thousands on the Left are planning riots. God willing, I'll be there to photograph and cover the events.

[Amelia]

**GP**

What I am wondering; do the sermons/speeches hinder Obamas platform? And does it matter or should it matter?

[John317]

Did you hear Obama today call Jeremiah's Wright's idea that the US government invented the AIDS virus "ridiculous"? I agree with Obama, and am liking him more and more for coming out strongly in this way. He is showing that he has guts, and I like that about him. What I don't understand is that there are people who are defending Wright as if he is correct and Obama wrong.

I found it interesting, also, that today Obama said that he found out recently that he didn't know Wright as well as he thought he did. This is exactly what I believed-- that Obama didn't seem to know Wright very well-- and I said this earlier, but now it makes me wonder somewhat about Obama's judgment. How could I know this about Wright, when I never saw Wright or attended his church, and Obama not know when he was in Wright's church for 20 years? I find this almost too much to believe.

A president must be able to judge character very well and very quickly. When goes into a conference with the Russians or with North Korea or China, he has to have a keen sense of the people he is dealing with. If he is wrong, it can spell disaster for the US. The question this raises is, does Obama have good judgment of character? For the country's sake, I hope and pray he does, but this has to give one pause about that aspect of him.

[John317]

Good question.

The thing I would be interested in looking at is whether Jeremiah Wright has been an influence on Senator Obama's thinking about race and about the US. I would have to say that it looks like he has. He has been heard to say some things in the campaign that sound very similar to some of the things that Wright has been saying from the pulpit.

That is the main way that I see a connection between Wright's sermons and talks and Obama's campaign. We have to ask ourselves, do we believe that sermons and words influence our thinking? If they don't, then we don't need to be concerned at all about what Wright has been saying. But if they do have an influence, we have to be interested in seeing how Wright's sermons have influenced Obama's thinking.

Remember that until the last few weeks, Senator Obama has repeatedly said in his campaign that "words matter." Yes, they do; yes, they do. What are the words, then, that Obama has been listening to-- assuming that he has been really listening to them-- year in and year out, for the past 20 years.

[fccool]

I personally think that Write's intentions are misinterpreted. He simply points out as many southern preachers do, that USA are far from being a "Christian" country it claims to be. Although he does go overboard with some statements, there is truth in many. People like to concentrate on a couple of silly ones and make a huge deal out of them, but do you completely disagree with all of his statements? Is USA really a Christian nation?

Obama is a politician, and as politician he will sway where the wind blows. He will do whatever it takes IMO. You will not see the real Obama till after the "coronation".

[John317]

I personally think that Write's intentions are misinterpreted. He simply points out as many southern preachers do, that USA are far from being a "Christian" country it claims to be....

He "simply points out... that the USA is far from being a Christian country it claims to be"? Is that all Jeremiah Wright says? Is that what all this "stink" has been about, in your opinion?

I take it, then, that you totally disagree with Obama in his statements about Wright. He has said that Wright's assertions about that and some other matters are "ridiculous.'' Obama has also said that Wright's words from the pulpit about whites are "divisive" and that both blacks and whites are "rightly offended."

If all that Wright has been saying is that the US is not as Christian a country as many have said, then I completely agree with him, because I don't believe this is a Christian country. There are many Christians who are in the country, and the nation and government has been influenced by Christianity, but that is a different matter.

However, that is not what the problems regarding Obama's relationship with Wright are all about. If that is all that Wright's been saying, there would be no problem at all.

Wright has said,

1) The United States government invented the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing blacks.

2) That the "attack" against Wright is really an attack on the black church.

3) That the members of his congregation should pray for God to "damn America."

4) That Obama is only saying what a politician has to say when he distances himself from Wright, implying that Obama is not sincere and honest.

5) That the US is no different or better than al-Qaeda when we attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

This is by no means a complete list of what Wright has said, but these few points show that the discussion is not simply due to Wright's saying the US is far from being a Christian country. Obama is not reacting to Wright in the way that he has because of such a simple thesis. It goes far beyond that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Wright has said,

1) The United States government invented the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing blacks.

2) That the "attack" against Wright is really an attack on the black church.

3) That the members of his congregation should pray for God to "damn America."

4) That Obama is only saying what a politician has to say when he distances himself from Wright, implying that Obama is not sincere and honest.

5) That the US is no different or better than al-Qaeda when we attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

AGain, John...context is everything, within the culture that it is said. And in the black community, within the context of the speach, there is a lot that looks pretty true. And the black community is hurting, to which the white community continues to tell the blacks "buck up, kid. You're not bleedin'." Trouble is, the black community is hurting in places where it doesn't even know that it's hurting. And there are sore places that they know where it hurts.

So, again, even based upon your history, you are making mud when you should be seeking water...You are talkin' out of turn....again...

Look, I don't agree with everything that Wright has said either....but in the context of the black religious community, and in thier views, Wright is attempting to move the black community into a positive place....Unfortunately, he is a preacher trying to do a politicians job...and hurting Obama with the white voters in the process...This is a hard place for Obama...What you all are not making an allowance for is the statesman to come out and lead...You grumble and complain and make insinuations...No wonder Moses stroke the rock and said "Must WE make water come out of this rock?"

[John317]

Quote:

Wright has said,

1) The United States government invented the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing blacks.

2) That the "attack" against Wright is really an attack on the black church.

3) That the members of his congregation should pray for God to "damn America."

4) That Obama is only saying what a politician has to say when he distances himself from Wright, implying that Obama is not sincere and honest.

5) That the US is no different or better than al-Qaeda when we attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Do you believe that most blacks agree with Jeremiah Wright on the issues we're discussing?

Sounds like Obama should not be disagreeing, then, with Wright, if Wright is really speaking for most of the black community. I deny that he does. I don't believe that most blacks believe what Wright has been saying. Obama says that Wright has offended blacks as well as whites.

Does Obama believe and feel and think the same way that Wright does? What do you think?

Is Wright correct about Obama-- that he is just a politician saying what a politician has to say to get elected?

Quote:

And the black community is hurting, to which the white community continues to tell the blacks "buck up, kid. You're not bleedin'."

Have you ever worked with "handicapped" people? Is it better for them if the care-giver babies them? Or is it best if the care-giver treats them like anyone else so far as possible? When I work with young people who have had some terrible problems in life, it doesn't do them any good to set low goals or to have fewer than normal requirements or lower standards. I would hate for someone to treat me like I'm a victim and unable to take care of myself. I think most blacks feel the same. That has been my experience anyway.

In any case, however, the fact that some blacks are hurting is not related to the issue of Obama's relationship to the church and to pastor Wright. This has to do with Obama and Jeremiah Wright, not the black community in general. The only way this would have to do with the "black church" and the "black community" is if both the black church and the black community believe and feel the same way that Wright does. I don't believe that they generally do feel the same. It is apparent that Obama doesn't.

Quote:

Trouble is, the black community is hurting in places where it doesn't even know that it's hurting. And there are sore places that they know where it hurts.

Do you and pastor Wright know where it is hurting better than even the black community knows? Do you think that Jeremiah Wright is helping the black community by saying the things he is saying about Obama and about the United States? Does his talk of "d--- America" help the blacks that he supposedly wants to help? I doubt the members of his church leave there feeling blessed and happy. They are more likely to leave frustrated and angry after hearing sermons by him about the United States and about whites. It is no wonder that Obama's wife, who is an attorney, said recently that she felt proud of America for the first time in her life. Why would she feel proud of America while sitting in that church listening to Wright preach that way?

Is that the kind of language and preaching that God revealed to Ellen White that blacks need to hear? I am totally shocked that SDAs would support preaching such as that which is coming out of Jeremiah Wright's mouth. It is not God who is influencing Jeremiah Wright but another power. Even Obama says that Wright is saying ridiculous and socially, racially divisive things.

Quote:

So, again, even based upon your history, you are making mud when you should be seeking water...You are talkin' out of turn....again...

I believe that I am clarifying the issues. I believe that lies do not help to clarify issues of race, and we all know that Jeremiah Wright has not been telling the truth when he makes the absurd claims he makes.

Kindly explain how it is that I am talking out of turn. What would you have me say? I am saying what I truly believe. I can't very well say what you believe or what you want me to say. I do not believe that Wright is helping either blacks or whites by the divisive things he says.

Is there anything you have heard Wight say in his church that you would like to hear SDA preachers say? I have never heard black Adventist preachers preach that way and I am glad I haven't.

Quote:

Look, I don't agree with everything that Wright has said either....but in the context of the black religious community, and in thier views, Wright is attempting to move the black community into a positive place....

I don't believe that Wright is helping blacks, and I haven't talked to any blacks who think that he is, either. Most of the blacks I have heard talk about it think that Wright is just out for himself and that he doesn't care about Obama or anyone else. That seems pretty obvious to me. Wright seems to know exactly what he is doing, and he is not stupid, so I have to assume he knows he is hurting Obama's chances. He obviously does not care.

Quote:

Unfortunately, he is a preacher trying to do a politicians job...and hurting Obama with the white voters in the process...

Do you think that Wright does not know this? I believe that Wright knows that if Obama gets elected, it won't be any good for Wright. Wright's popularity will go up if he can say that whites didn't vote for Obama. What good does it do Wright if he can't say that whites are racist but instead has to admit that the whites elected a black man as their president? So I am not at all surprised that Jeremiah Wright seems to be doing all he can to hurt Obama's chances of becoming the first black president. Are you?

Quote:

This is a hard place for Obama...What you all are not making an allowance for is the statesman to come out and lead...You grumble and complain and make insinuations...No wonder Moses stroke the rock and said "Must WE make water come out of this rock?"

Think about this a moment: Why didn't Obama have the good sense and judgment a long time ago to see this coming?

And why did he say just yesterday that he realizes now that he did not know Wright as well as he thought he did?

What did Wright say that Obama is amazed at? Is anyone who knew Wright amazed? No. So why is Obama?

You call Obama a statesman. But wouldn't a good statesman have handled this situation much differently?

My own evaluation of Obama is that at the very least, he is naive and inexperienced.

[Neil D]

Quote:

I believe that I am clarifying the issues. I believe that lies do not help to clarify issues of race, and we all know that Jeremiah Wright has not been telling the truth when he makes the absurd claims he makes.

And I think that you are OVER ANALYZING the whole situation. And in your analyzing, you put up what you THINK, ie opinion. And like the William Ayers connection to Obama, you make some far fetched connections.

Each man is doing what he believes to be right.... Just like you do, by putting up your analysis. And they are doing what is best with the hand that they are dealt within their culture, context and their beliefs.

What the problem is, John, is ego. And the desire to not be perceived as wrong. Just like your posts....

As Yoda would say, the situation just is.....

[Dr. Shane]

Wright is off the wall, offensive and terribly wrong. That said, I can say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore at times. However that is not to say that everyone that listens to them agrees with them. In fact, some people have listened to them for years but still do not agree with them.

[lazarus]

Quote:

The United States government invented the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing blacks.

I don't believe that is true but can you show me it is not true.

Quote:

2) That the "attack" against Wright is really an attack on the black church.

I agree with that. This whole fuss is as as much about how he said it, i.e. the loud angry black man thing, as much as about what he actually said. White preachers have said, do say equally controversial things but white won't make as much fuss because the tone is more palatable.

Quote:

3) That the members of his congregation should pray for God to "damn America."

Can you post the quote for that?

Wright said..."

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

Quote:

4) That Obama is only saying what a politician has to say when he distances himself from Wright, implying that Obama is not sincere and honest.

He's entitled to his opinion.

Quote:

5) That the US is no different or better than al-Qaeda when we attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Don't agree with that.

Quote:

Do you believe that most blacks agree with Jeremiah Wright on the issues we're discussing?

I would say many blacks people would say a lot of what Wright is saying is true or could be true.

Niel:

Quote:

Trouble is, the black community is hurting in places where it doesn't even know that it's hurting.

Can you explain that one?

Quote:

Do you think that Jeremiah Wright is helping the black community by saying the things he is saying about Obama and about the United States? Does his talk of "d--- America" help the blacks that he supposedly wants to help? I doubt the members of his church leave there feeling blessed and happy.

Later in his sermon Wright says this: Tell your neighbor he's (going to) help us one last time. Turn back and say forgive him for the God Damn, that's in the Bible though. Blessings and curses is in the Bible. It's in the Bible.

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

Quote:

They are more likely to leave frustrated and angry after hearing sermons by him about the United States and about whites.

This is the problem. You are taking one line, a few phrases and characterizing his ministry. Its wrong and you should stop.

Quote:

I am totally shocked that SDAs would support preaching such as that which is coming out of Jeremiah Wright's mouth.

Welcome to the real world. Wright is a great preacher homoletically. I don't agree with everything but don't call his ministry of the devil because you have heard some snippets of his sermons on Fox news or seen bits on you tube. I wonder what you would have said if you'd only heard what Jesus said as written by Matthew in chapter 23.

Quote:

Why didn't Obama have the good sense and judgment a long time ago to see this coming?

If this is the area in which Obama is to be challenged on his judgement then hes in a good position. No one died. McCain on the other hand had much greater challenges when it comes to making a bad call.

Quote:

You call Obama a statesman. But wouldn't a good statesman have handled this situation much differently?

LOL hannity et al have been banging this drum for weeks now. Its amusing that they are seeking to make so much of this, Those same folks give Bush a pass when it comes to his judgment on sending the country to war for no justifiable reason. This whole argument hs not real credibility. The polls reflect that.

Making a bad decision that leaves more US dead than dies on 911 goes to the heart of judgment.

Quote:

My own evaluation of Obama is that at the very least, he is naive and inexperienced.

A certain state sentator had the good judgment to speak against the war.

A questionable Pastor v A Questionable War...hmmmmm.

[Neil D]

I understand 'shock statements'...I understand that given the need to say some things IN CONTEXT to say some shocking things. Out of context, they are totally wrong. Those shock statements can not stand by themselves. But in context, they convey another message, a subtler message and one that is NOT usually harmful. Many in the culture understand this....many outside the culture do not....

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and must use shock statements to entertain. Micheal Moore documents some facts and then extrapolates possible outcomes. Not always true, and many times arrives at some outrageous conclusions but definitely gets one to thinking.

Doesn't make anyone here a prophet, nor exceptionally wise, nor exclusive future seeing abilities... nor right....

[lazarus]

Wright is off the wall, offensive and terribly wrong

You'd say that about Pat Robertson, Fallwell, Hagee, Parsley right?

[Neil D]

Niel:

Quote:

Trouble is, the black community is hurting in places where it doesn't even know that it's hurting.

Can you explain that one?

[

Sure....

If you have been treated a certain way all your life, you don't know any other way. If you have been verbally abused, you tend to treat others with verbal abuse as well.

*If* you see the different way/new way of doing something, you will not do the new way as you will attribute it to the individual that you saw doing it. But, it is not YOUR way...

Kinda racial..but it does explain dysfunctional behavior...and that is what I was pointing to....

Now, you keep writing my name as "Niel" when it is Neil...are you deliberaly mixing up the letters of my name, indicating that I am mixed up in my views????

[lazarus]

give me an example? just tryin to understand what u mean.

[Neil D]

I used verbal abuse as an example....Let's expand it a bit...

Say my communication is a bit harsh, even verbally abusive from time to time with everyone. I grew up that way and my aunt and uncle and mom and dad and siblings all talked harsh....put downs are common, and encouraged.

Then one day I meet briefly a man named "lazarus", whose kind words communicated things well. How do I explain that? Well, that's just him...So what?

...and I move on and continue to do the harsh communications...

Now, if you wish something specific to the black America, I can not come up with anything at this moment...as I am plumb out of specifics....But I am sure you can extrapolate the principle .

[lazarus]

I can understand what your saying...ish! I

[Neil D]

I can understand what your saying...ish! I

You're so kind.....

[John317]

This will probably surprise you but only because you don't know me very well, but actually you and I agree on race a lot more than you might think. I'll be back to write more, tonight.

[Amelia]

Quote:

passes a three strike law

Laz, do you know what he ment by this? Is he thinking the 3 strikes law was specifically aimed at African-American males?

Quote:

White preachers have said, do say equally controversial things but white won't make as much fuss because the tone is more palatable.

That and the lack of media present to film and air the statements. Which makes me wonder if anyone has ever sat in on any of the Bushs' church services?