<p>mezzomom, I’m afraid posters like Lax will have little interest in learning anything from the information you’ve provided. Obfuscating facts and casting aspersions is more their style – it’s easier.</p>
<p>Unlike you FLVADAD I look at his whole body of work, not just the nice things he said. I haven’t joined the cult of Obama yet, upon membership though I’m sure I’ll find it very easy to turn a blind eye to anything wrong Obama does. I hear that once I “Barack the vote” I’m able to explain to people that Obama can’t do wrong…if you think there’s something negative about him well, you’re just a racist who doesn’t want a black man to be president. If you think Obama can do wrong then you don’t want change! You want W version 2! There are way too many racist comments in Wrights speeches to make me think it’s just a slip of the tongue. There’s a reason that the Obama campaign tried to “hide” him for all of last year. Why do you think they did that? Why did the Obama campaign decide to not have him speak in public following Obama announcing his presidency? I’m sure it’s because of his full, positive body of work right?</p>
<p>You know, for someone who can’t make a single post without referencing the CULT OF THE DREAD LORD OBAMA, you’re just as systematic and obstinate in your condemnation of him. You also have the unfortunate habit of restating the opposing view in your own terms:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and then attacking that as if it constitutes a meaningful argument in any way (it is, of course, an embarrassing display of [poor</a> logic](<a href=“Bitcoin Prime App ™ | Die offizielle und aktualisierte Website 2024 🥇”>Bitcoin Prime App ™ | Die offizielle und aktualisierte Website 2024 🥇)).</p>
<p>Just sayin’.</p>
<p>mezzomom - great reference, but FLVADAD is right, no one who is already anti-Obama is going to take the time to read Cone, et al to discover what black liberation theology is about. It was covered in depth in the first of my required Christian Theology classes in seminary, taught by a black professor. Oh, by the way, that seminary is probably less than four miles from Trinity UCC, so I suspect some of the black students we had, chose Trinity as their home church. This professor had me enrapt the entire course, and I was sad when it was over (I remember one day, about five years ago, when my then middle school daughter had a day off from school, and I took her to this class with me, she, too, could not take her eyes off of him). It opened my eyes like no one ever had to the struggles of blacks and how they find promises in Jesus’ message that affirm their pain and struggles. But I was able to take those words and make them meaningful in the context of being a woman in a mostly historically, male dominated church setting. In fact, one of our assignments was to take Cone’s readings, and reflect on how they could help us construct our own theology.</p>
<p>I suspect if we had a candidate of Latin American heritage who belonged to a church who preached the theology of Gustavo Guti</p>
<p>FLVADAD and Teriwitt, I don’t expect the anti-Obama “camp” to research any further than the nearest inflammatory headline which validates their position. But I’d like to think there are some who are lurking on these threads who might be genuinely confused or curious. The links are for them. </p>
<p>While I believe that much of this controversy is actually about race, I’ve been stunned by the willingness of some to trash a pastor, a church, a denomination and a theology based on nothing more than a few clips which lack context. Although the extremes of liberation theology distress me, I think liberation theology at its core is uplifting, hopeful, and so committed to social justice that it’s impossible to ignore.</p>
<p>And Lax, I’m wondering how you define membership in the “cult of Obama”? Is it anyone who makes the decision to vote for Senator Obama in the primary (or general if he becomes the nominee)? Or do you have to do something beyond that to reap your scorn? I’m actually amused by those who have assumed I’m some sort of Obama True Believer, merely because I believe that Pastor Wright has been unfairly tarred and feathered, based on roughly 3 minutes of clips from a body of sermons preached over 30 years. I would never want to be judged so harshly; I know I’ve said some wrong-headed and harsh things in my lifetime that don’t reflect my overall attempt to live a Gospel-led life.</p>
<p>If you think of things said by the likes of Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Bill Maher, Chris Rock, heck Jay Leno and David Letterman for that matter…I’m still not getting what this man said that is so horrible, so shocking.</p>
<p>First he’s just using a classic “fire and brimstone” style and as to criticizing our country, are we above criticism, I think not. Just thinking of things said by Billy Graham or this gentleman (who’s name escapes me) that is now supporting McCain, again don’t see what is so shocking about any of the comments from Obama’s former pastor, the only difference seems to be to most is that he is Black. A rather sad commentary in my opinion.</p>
<p>In any event with all these speeches, it’s rhetoric and hyperbole and all the criticism, much to do about nuthin’. I find 5 years of “Shock and Awe” alot more troubling.</p>
<p>i’m done with this party of people who profess faith and morals when they themselves cannot smell themselves rotten of ethics and morals. The Rs have lost me. </p>
<p>When bleu cheese looks like jack cheese, something is wrong.</p>
<p>mezzomom; I can understand you not believing that the anti-Obama crowd would only look at negative adds and comments. But it’s equally true that the Obama FANS do exactly the same thing. Only looking at the sugar coated adds and comments. </p>
<p>The truth is; the original poster tried to put up a link that was going clear Obama and Reverend Wright of all accusations, and make Obama back to being the beacon of light that many have tried to portray him as. Well, the original post is 100% wrong. The link provided has absolutely nothing to do with what Wright said about God Damning America. No one got upset that he was giving his personal opinion about all these things that America has done in the past; and about how it served us right; and the chicken were coming home to roost. Or even that it wasn’t his words. This is about the parts he DID say and not in this link.</p>
<p>The truth is; if Obama and Wtight were totally in the right, then Obama would have simply pointed out; “He didn’t say that”. The FACT is; Obama clearly said that Reverend Wright, DID say such a thing. That he HAS said things like this in the past. That he DOESN’T agree with Reverend Wright on these issues. etc…</p>
<p>For the original post to try and “Defend” Obama and Wright on something that they both ADMITTED to doing, only shows you’re rationalization of his words. Obama explained himself and it should be done and over with. If you try and defend or rationalize it only makes the topic remain a point of concern and discussion among many critics. Again, you can’t defend or rationalize something when the people you are trying to defend have admitted that what was said was wrong.</p>
<p>Well, this is interesting. It is clear that Rev. Wright’s comments were taken out of context, with a resultant distortion of their meaning. In context, his statements are somewhat controversial - but nowhere near as controversial as they look when viewed in isolation. Rev. Wright’s “faith footnote” provided food for thought, but no honest basis for outrage or the kind of sanctimonious, hypocritical commentary that filled the other thread here on CC. So what we have is a case of classic Swiftboating - you take some half truths, mix them with some actual lies, sprinkle in true facts taken out of context, and voila: you’ve made Obama “deny that he’s a homosexual” as the story goes.</p>
<p>You’ll end up with the phenomenon we’ve seen before. Just as a majority of Republicans who got most of their information from Fox News actually believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq even after it was publicly disclosed that none had, and many still believe that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 - even though there wasn’t - the hard core Foxed up segment of society will continue in the mode they’ve were destined for anyway.</p>
<p>As for those who are not yet so blog-impacted that they are willing to actually watch Rev. Wright’s actual sermons - not just selected snippets taken out of context - and judge for themselves, it will be interesting to see the reactions. I’ll also be interested to see if this results in any soul searching on the part of the rest of the media (not Fox - they don’t care.) Apparently some: <a href=“http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/[/url]”>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/</a></p>
<p>How rich! Suddenly this is a “Fox News lied” moment. Nevermind that it was ABC which broke the story. Never mind that all of the networks used the same piece. Never mind that the “chickens come home to roost” quote was just one of many tapes that ABC found:
<a href=“Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1</a></p>
<p>Now, I’m just waiting for the next shoe to drop on this with Fox News digging out the actual quote from Pike and comparing it to what Wright claimed that he said. I’d say that the Wright apologists are hanging on to a shred with this.</p>
<p>^good point FF. I take back what i said, and will stay with the R’s. If the story was from a news organization, shame on them. And if this story was fed to them from a bias party, shame on them still. And if this story was from a bias person for the intent of sliming, we go another notch lower.</p>
<p>PS, If anyone has any influence on W, Please tell him not to speak on anything other than how cute babies are.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m not commenting on the Pike reference. I’m talking about the entire “faith footnote” - you did take the time to watch the clip on Youtube, didn’t you, FF? Taken in context, the sermon was basically a statement that “hatred begets hatred” and calling for a soul-searching acknowledgment that we have been guilty of many of the same things that have been done to us. If you consider how we took this nation from the Native Americans, our history of slavery, and the fact that in more recent times we have intentionally killed civilians in waging our wars, as noted by Rev. Wright, it gives one food for thought in connection with 9/11. Regardless of our justification for our actions (and one’s own side’s reasons for acting are always more readily accepted than the “other side’s” reasons) we have waged war on the innocent women and children of other nations. When considering 9/11 I think it’s worth remembering that. I certainly think it’s not an inappropriate theme for a Christian sermon. “Turn the other cheek” anyone?</p>
<p>But that lesson wasn’t learned by America, was it? In our anger, fear and outrage over 9/11 we declared war on — Iraq. And now more chickens are coming home to roost. 4,000 dead, trillions wasted - and the argument made that since we’re there and we’ve destroyed their society, we have to stay until it’s put right. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with all of Rev. Wright’s opinions, but if I had been a member of that church I wouldn’t have left over the “chickens” sermon or anything else like it.</p>
<p>Yes, I did listen to the full Youtube part of the sermon. To me, it makes no difference whether he was quoting Pike or Ward Churchill. By quoting and embellishing these thoughts he was explicitly endorsing them. You certainly can not think that the 9/11 hijackers were thinking about getting retribution for Hiroshima or for the American Indians, so why bring that up in this context? It is just a ridiculous as Falwell and Robertson saying that 9/11 was a result of our sexual immorality in their minds.</p>
<p>But, to me, the “chickens coming home to roost” speech, while idiotic and inflaming, was not the worst of his sermons. I think the race-baiting sermons were particularly divisive and counterproductive.</p>
<p>FF: The message I heard was that “violence begets violence”. Hiroshima was mentioned in a long string of violent actions that this country has engaged in (for good or bad reasons). His point was that it should come as no surprise that violence would eventually find its way to our shores. I think it is a simplistic world view, but he is a pastor, not a statesman. Pastors tend to have simplistic world views. I would not vote for Wright for President.</p>
<p>FF, if you’re determined to find offense in Wright’s sermon, you will find it. I didn’t take him to be saying that the 9/11 hijackers “were thinking about getting retribution for Hiroshima” at all. Have you ever heard the saying “What goes around comes around?” Have you ever wondered about this:
Agree with it or not, it’s an argument that has it’s place in considering how to act, and in assessing the actions of others.</p>
<p>Thank you kluge for that timely quote.</p>
<p>And, FF correct me if I am wrong but I believe Wright was quoting Ambassador Peck- someone who certainly knows about Iraq.</p>
<p>From Wiki
Edward L. Peck is a retired career United States diplomat who served thirty-two-years in the U.S. Foreign Service.
Edward Peck served as Chief of Mission in Baghdad (Iraq 1977 to 1980) and later held senior posts in Washington and abroad. He also served as a Foreign Service Officer in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, and as Ambassador in Mauritania. At the State Department he served as Deputy Director of Covert Intelligence Programs, Director of the Office of Egyptian Affairs and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration. He is president of Foreign Services International, a consulting firm that works with governments, businesses and educational institutions across the world.</p>
<p>when Wright says america and begins listing the sins of america he seems to refer to people not in that room. that is the problem. a man who wants to represent america should consider himself american. however obama understands himself as an american and if he can tolerate the idiocy of others which he has been doing his whole life, he should be able to forgive my long list of shortcomings. he is a good man.</p>
<p>Why is it that when people want to use Hiroshima as an example of America’s sins against the world, they don’t include Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. An attack against a country that wasn’t even in a war at the time.</p>
<p>The truth is; everyone of us have sinned. Obama and the Reverend Wright are no exception. The reverend’s comments about America incites racial division and he is not innocent. Obama’s condoning of Wright’s comments also puts into question his true position on the topic. He too is NOT innocent.</p>
<p>Hillary and John are not that much better. But when you take in all things considered; Obama is not a better leader. He may be a better orator, but not a better leader. He is just as much a hypocrite as those believe clinton and McCain are. He speaks out again racial remarks by some people but tip toes when it’s about his supporters. When it came to the passport issue; Obama’s spokesperson said:</p>
<p>“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton in a statement.</p>
<p>If it had been just his passport, I could understand the outrage. But this happened to all 3 candidates. Obama’s people are trying to say that this is an administration and Republican issue; thus linking it to McCain. What a Joke Obama is. He is typical to Clinton, McCain and every other politician. He is no better at all.</p>
<p>So now the question is; there are 3 candidates currently looking to be president. 2 democrats who haven’t finished fighting it out and a republican. All 3 have the typical candidate and political agenda. All 3 are basically the same when it comes to integrity of their word. So, why do you support the least experienced?</p>