Rev. Wright vs. the White Religious Right

I suspect that the McCain and Clinton factions are siding on this one......all the race innuendo from both parties coming out at the same time is far too suspicious....no coincidence there is there?

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Biddy:

All this uproar over a man speaking the truth? If Rev. Wright was so offensive, what about Falwell (no tears were shed when he croaked)? He was far more intolerable and anti-American. I think the airing of Rev. Wright's sermon was an attack on Obama which I believe will only backfire on the war mongering Republicans.

That's the the crux for me: Wright was not wrong.

Granted, his delivery was anachronistic ... pure 1968. Remember Nina Simone's song Mississippi Goddam, with its line "Oh but this whole country is full of lies"? The anger was very real then and it's no less real today.

Absolutely this video was leaked in order to take down Obama, no question. This is textbook Republican swift-boating. And it is the Republicans ... they know McCain will have a harder time beating Obama than Clinton, better to "take him out" now.

The right-wing media arm, also know as FOX News, is pursuing the mission with a vengeance, not only playing the Wright video end over end, but claiming Obama is a Muslim (he's not, but god forbid if he were, and you know which god I mean), or, even worse, a Muslim Manchurian Candidate! He's un-American because he won't wear the flag lapel pin! He refuses to take the pledge of allegiance! They compare him to Hitler, to Mao, and they say he's a Marxist! They call him "Osama," and they make a point of obsessively repeating his middle name, Hussein, in order to conflate him with Muslim dictators!

By the way, it's interesting that most of the fuss about Wright's remarks were about the racial aspects. His point about 9/11 as evidence of America's "chickens coming home to roost" (a direct reference to Malcolm X's use of the same metaphor to describe the assassination of JFK) seems to be much less discussed.

Just one of those numerous chickens: a few months before 9/11, Big Oil executives were wining and dining Taliban leaders in Texas, wooing them to make the big deal, namely, running oil pipelines through Afghanistan (presumably all the better to load onto the Chevron oil tanker named the "Condoleezza Rice" ... I am not making this up). Apparently, 9/11 was a deal breaker.

All best,
Fred

and let's not forget Pat Robertson's little speech "American's deserved 911 because of the Gays". Lovely. Why is it that the harder you thump the Bible, the biggest piece of Human garbage you are? I thought that being a "good Christian" meant you loved everyone. The only people these self proclaimed leaders of God love are themselves and prostitutes.

Pat Robertson is a Christian? I thought he was a comedian!

quote:

Granted, his delivery was anachronistic ... pure 1968

Yes, but IMhO he (Wright) seems to want nothing more than to have his turn with a sledge hammer to further drive a wedge between the “races” in this debate.
MLK had plenty of thought-provoking and critical things to say about race relations back in the day, but on reflection he was driving to understanding and peace and not inflaming the masses on both sides. I just don’t see that “greater good” mentality with Wright.
Wright is a has-been that, many years ago, took a strange and divisive twist of MLK’s messages of unity and peace while respecting differences.
Wright does tap into the anger and frustration felt by many in the Black community. And it is easy to see why many feel this way.
Interestingly, the Black community has a hard time “claiming” Obama as one of their “own” – his growing up experiences are far from typical for any US citizens. Though he is truly “African-American” and not the product of 5th or 6th generation long-time residents on this continent whose ancestors were brought to this land by force.
That Obama associated so closely to Wright, and by his association his views, for the last 20 years should be as disturbing as GWB’s association with the religious right.
Obama’s credibility as a moderate politician is out the window for me. His various associations with Wright and the crooked real estate tycoon Rezko, etc. don’t demonstrate good choices. If elected, I hope he can keep a focus on a number of important issues and surround himself with wise council, which the association with Wright appears to defy.
David

quote:

Interestingly, the Black community has a hard time “claiming” Obama as one of their “own” – his growing up experiences are far from typical for any US citizens. Though he is truly “African-American” and not the product of 5th or 6th generation long-time residents on this continent whose ancestors were brought to this land by force.

One of my tutors suggested quite some time ago that this would be one of Obama's biggest problems. As MLK Jr. said, "the sons of slaves and the sons of former slave owners". Obama isn't the son of a slave, and there are going to be people who think (probably quite rightly) that makes him very different from that original community, perhaps that he doesn't carry with him the injustices that their ancestors suffered.

quote:

claiming Obama is a Muslim (he's not, but god forbid if he were)

Erm.......

Another of my tutors, an Indian Muslim made another interesting observation about Obama's heritage. His father was a Muslim, and therefore so was Obama from birth. However, Obama claims not to be a Muslim, as he was born one he must therefore have renounced Islam, a totally unforgivable act. Not only would his being president give the absolutists a lot of extra material for the whole "America, the great Satan" line of propaganda, but many heads of state in Islamic countries would not wish to associate themselves with him.

quote:

"[Yusufali 16:106] Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith, but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty."

"[Yusuf Ali 3:28] Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."

I could care less if the next president is Muslim. Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, whatever. It'll be better than the "evil doer" Satanist who's in office now.

quote:

I could care less if the next president is Muslim. Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, whatever. It'll be better than the "evil doer" Satanist who's in office now.

Do you really think W is a Satinist? He doesn't fit the profile.
Pawn of the religious right, for sure. But Satinist?
And will anything be better than W? Careful what you ask for...
David

Wright's troubling, to be sure, but everything I know about Obama's record in Illinois (my residence since 1981, except for 8 months in Kuala Lumpur and 14 months in Dallas) is that he believes in and acts to increase cooperation between members of various groups.

I've never damned the USA, but I agree with many of Wright's charges. Further, unless we have good documentation of whole sermons, I have to withhold judgement - he could easily have been quoted out of context.

As for Rezko, there's honest graft and dishonest graft. I suspect Rezko kept his dishonest graft hidden from most of his acquaintances, and I don't see why he would have shown it to Obama.

Besides, Rezko's trial is not yet over, and his primary accuser benefits greatly by his accusations.

Obama is a Hyde Parker, and Hyde Park politicians seem to be a lot less corrupt than the rest of Illinois' politicians.

Phil

Hyde Park sensibilities (as compared to the rest of Chicago politics). Never thought of it that way.
I lived in Naperville in the middle '80s and got a taste of the Chicago political scene, I see what you mean.
Excellent points, dijftw. Having "renounced" his birth faith must not sit well with the fundamentalists.
David

[/QUOTE]
Do you really think W is a Satinist? He doesn't fit the profile.
Pawn of the religious right, for sure. But Satinist?
And will anything be better than W? Careful what you ask for...
David[/QUOTE]

Well, he seems pretty damn evil to me. Yes, it would be worse if Hillary got in, which is what the "evil doers" have planned.

quote:

if Hillary got in, which is what the "evil doers" have planned

Which "evil doers" do you mean? I would have expected "they" would want McCain in office!
David

Oh I would disagree, Hillary seems considerably more evil to me! After 10 years of Tony Blair I'm very suspicious of people who grin too much!

I always think Bush gets a lot more stick than he deserves, if 9/11 never happened he wouldn't be vilified the way he is now. He'd probably be remembered somewhat like Ford is, a slightly comic, but generally mundane character. I don't think any other American President would have done anything differently. I was in the US shortly after 9/11 and the mood of the people I met was very much one of wanting revenge, all this anti-war / anti-Bush stuff only started to get any serious momentum once it was clear that America was going to have to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for years before they became stable and that some American soldiers would die. Quite frankly I think the American anti-war movement is somewhat pathetic, "lets bugger off home and leave them to their own devices" (i.e. let the other powers in the region carve them up, or a civil war rage until a despot worse than Saddam gains control), is an unbelievably selfish position.

The idea that there is some conspiracy of "evil doers" seems bizarre to me, America's primary system gives the general public more control over who the candidates are than any other system I've come across.

The alleged ideological closeness of McCain to the Neo-Cons also doesn't ring true with me at all, everything that I have read about him suggests to me that he is far closer to the European type libertarian/liberal conservative mainstream. He's even apparently meeting David Cameron of the British Conservatives, who have been persona non gratia with the Bush administration since they started asking awkward questions about Iraq in Parliament

[QUOTE]
The idea that there is some conspiracy of "evil doers" seems bizarre to me, America's primary system gives the general public more control over who the candidates are than any other system I've come across.

Really? Unless you have hanging chads, a brother who's Governor in Florida and fake electronic voting machines made by a devout Republican...

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:

Interestingly, the Black community has a hard time “claiming” Obama as one of their “own” – his growing up experiences are far from typical for any US citizens.

While it's true that Obama's origins are atypical, the black community has overwhelmingly supported Obama with their votes. In states with significant black populations, such as Mississippi and South Carolina, Obama won roughly 90% of the black vote, as well as enough of the white vote to win the overall count.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Barry:

I've never damned the USA, but I agree with many of Wright's charges. Further, unless we have good documentation of whole sermons, I have to withhold judgement - he could easily have been quoted out of context.

Of course, it's not a matter of damning the USA but of damning certain policies and actions throughout its history, and to be sure, there have been many eminently damnable policies and actions.

And when he says that the USA is controlled by "rich white people" ... well, it's a fact, isn't it?

By the way, it's interesting to note that Wright is much more than the fringe radical he has been portrayed as in recent weeks, and, in fact, was an honored guest of the Clinton White House as a respected leader of the black community.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:

Do you really think W is a Satinist? He doesn't fit the profile. Pawn of the religious right, for sure. But Satinist? And will anything be better than W? Careful what you ask for...

No, President Junior is not a Satanist. That is, I don't believe he worships Satan. He is, however, an agent of the devil.

As far as anyone being better than Junior, well, Cheney certainly would have been worse. I also think Guiliani might have been worse. But of the three remaining viable candidates, as much as I disagree with him on just about everything, even McCain will be an improvement in that he seems to have at least a shred of decency.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

quote:

claiming Obama is a Muslim (he's not, but god forbid if he were)

Erm.......

Another of my tutors, an Indian Muslim made another interesting observation about Obama's heritage. His father was a Muslim, and therefore so was Obama from birth. However, Obama claims not to be a Muslim, as he was born one he must therefore have renounced Islam, a totally unforgivable act. Not only would his being president give the absolutists a lot of extra material for the whole "America, the great Satan" line of propaganda, but many heads of state in Islamic countries would not wish to associate themselves with him.

To further explain my statement above, "god forbid if [Obama] were a Muslim," what I meant was that in a society supposedly predicated on religious freedom, what would be so wrong with a Muslim president? Are we gonna walk the walk, or just talk the talk? Of course, the reality is that especially in these rabidly paranoid post-9/11 times, there is no way this could come to pass. In fact, it's kind of amazing that in this climate a Muslim was recently elected to congress (Keith Ellison of Minnesota). I especially relished his pointed use of a Koran belonging to Thomas Jefferson in taking his oath of office.

As far as your Muslim tutor, he is misinformed. Barack Obama's father was born a Muslim, but then had left Islam and was an atheist or agnostic before marrying Barack's mother. Thus, Barack was not born a Muslim.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

I always think Bush gets a lot more stick than he deserves, if 9/11 never happened he wouldn't be vilified the way he is now. He'd probably be remembered somewhat like Ford is, a slightly comic, but generally mundane character. I don't think any other American President would have done anything differently. I was in the US shortly after 9/11 and the mood of the people I met was very much one of wanting revenge, all this anti-war / anti-Bush stuff only started to get any serious momentum once it was clear that America was going to have to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for years before they became stable and that some American soldiers would die.

When you say that you "don't think any other American President would have done anything differently" after 9/11, do you mean that any other president would have preemptively attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? That any other president would have justified a war of choice based on distorted cherry-picked intelligence and outright lies? And would have done so without any exit strategy, without proper preparation on the socio-political level, without enough troops, without enough equipment, without doing everything necessary to take care of wounded veterans of the war, and on top of it all, doing so without enough money, grossly underestimating its cost and causing the biggest deficits by far in US history? All for a war against people who had nothing to do with 9/11?

Believe me, very few Americans had any problem with hunting down Osama bin Laden and dismantling the Al Qaeda infrastructure, even with taking out the Taliban (we'll just conveniently ignore the fact that BushCo was in the process of making oil deals with the Taliban mere months before 9/11, and, while we're at it, we may as well also ignore those photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with our good buddy Saddam Hussein right around the time he was gassing the Kurds with chemicals bought from the USAsaying he's willing to negotiate with dictators?). If BushCo had legitimately pursued the people truly responsible for 9/11 (most of whom were Saudis, by the way ... so shouldn't we have atacked Saudi Arabia?), Americans would be overwhelmingly supportive. Tragically, that's not what happened, by a long shot.

No, Bush was vilified long before 9/11, starting with stealing the 2000 election. And then giving a tax break to the wealthy, while sticking it to the middle and lower classes. Appointing Big Oil hacks and hegemonic power junkies like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice to his cabinet, starting to dismantle gains made in environmental protection, increasing corporate welfare and military expenditures while reducing funds for desperately needed social programs, infrastructure renewal, alternative energy development, education, health care, etc. "Slightly comic," my ass! Despotic moron is more like it ... there's not the tiniest shred of humor in what that man has done to America and the world. And, in fact, what passes for humor in Bush's world is actually a sociopath's video showing himself "looking" for the WMDs under couch pillows and behind desks. Hilarious! The four thousand-plus dead Americans and allies, and nearly a million or so dead Iraqis find it especially so.

And this is just the shortlist of the tragic legacy of Bush the Younger's reign. The fact is, he actually gets a lot less "stick" than he deserves ... he deserves removal from office at the least.

Sincerely,
Fred

I've seen the data from 2000, and even with the assumption that all the irregularities were at Gore's expense (which I think is a somewhat paranoid assumption) the election was still very close. If the election had been systematically rigged the result wouldn't have been so close that it could have been called either way. If you go to those lengths you wouldn't leave the possibility open that the supreme court might ruin everything. It was a very close election, and the problems arose from the use of 1980s technology. Voting technology is managed on a county or state level depending on state, and although much media attention focused on Florida, there were plenty of Democrat controlled states that had similar problems.

Yes, Gore won the popular vote. So what? There is a reason that the President isn't directly elected. It's one of the constitutional balances to prevent the more populous states dominating the small.

quote:

As far as your Muslim tutor, he is misinformed. Barack Obama's father was born a Muslim, but then had left Islam and was an atheist or agnostic before marrying Barack's mother. Thus, Barack was not born a Muslim.

But his father cannot cease to be a Muslim, there is no mechanism to do so in Islam. He would merely be a Muslim who had committed the grievous sin of uttering unbelief. Barack was still born to a Muslim father and is therefore a Muslim.

Back to the subject in hand. A practicing Muslim would give me far less cause for concern than a protégé of the dear Rev. Wright!

Who Cares? I don't think every Muslim is a cold blooded terrorist or hater of the free World. Just like every Christian isn't an annoying, bible thumping hypocrite who rapes children...