Bombshell Obama Pastor Video

[agentpleakley]

I hope so!!! But you know, I think I read that this county is the fastest growing county in Georgia.

I have to run -- but when I get back this evening I'll find the Wikipedia link and post it, and confirm that.

Maybe land is REALLY cheap

 

[denisenh]

I agree with all these things, as well. But without quotas --without some kind of legislation to level the playing field -- how would a black person EVER have a chance in a community like the one I mentioned?

edited to add: I suppose they could move somewhere else, but why should they have to?

Show them this..that'll solve the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyMsKKGgIYg

 

[CPT Tripss]

The video doesn't lie, he was nowhere near Chicago on that day.

And do I think the reverend could change his tune when either Oprah or Obama are in the pew's? Yes, I think it's entirely possible... Have you yet listened to the Audacity of Hope Sermon? Didn't think so....

maybe he has a doppelganger.

 

[agentpleakley]

Show them this..that'll solve the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyMsKKGgIYg

Oh my -- to both the video and the comments posted.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I'm so sorry you missed my cheerleading about McCain yesterday. I'll spare you a repeat...after two kids the ol' uniform just doesn't fit like it used to...

seriously though, I think a few "die hard conservatives" have already addressed that since McCain is a lock, we talk about him in the conservative thread

geez, I didn't want to lurk where my kind aren't welcome. course, some of your kind don't seem to think the same way.

 

[CathrynRose]

geez, I didn't want to lurk where my kind aren't welcome. course, some of your kind don't seem to think the same way.

What is that???

 

[themilesfamily]

Maybe land is REALLY cheap

Oh my gosh -- I'm back -- I drove out my driveway and my neighborhood is FLOODED. I couldn't get anywhere -- the bridge to the other side of town is covered in water.

Anyway -- I went back and read the Wikipedia entry for this county. This is interesting -- as of 2006 it was in the top 10 fastest growing counties in the United States. They're building schools like crazy. If anyone here posts from Forsyth County Georgia, I would love to know what your community is like and what you think on the topic. (I just want to say, too, I don't everyone who lives there is a racist!!!!!) It appears to be an affluent community -- the 13th richest in the United States according to Forbes magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_County,_Georgia

 

[agentpleakley]

Oh my gosh -- I'm back -- I drove out my driveway and my neighborhood is FLOODED. I couldn't get anywhere -- the bridge to the other side of town is covered in water.

Anyway -- I went back and read the Wikipedia entry for this county. This is interesting -- as of 2006 it was in the top 10 fastest growing counties in the United States. They're building schools like crazy. If anyone here posts from Forsyth County Georgia, I would love to know what your community is like and what you think on the topic. (I just want to say, too, I don't everyone who lives there is a racist!!!!!) It appears to be an affluent community -- the 13th richest in the United States according to Forbes magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_County,_Georgia

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13117.html

Wow -- 2.7 % -- but actually I am more surprised that Georgia only has 29% African American population.

 

[themilesfamily]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/13117.html

Wow -- 2.7 % -- but actually I am more surprised that Georgia only has 29% African American population.

That's a great link! Much better than the Wikipedia.

Those statistics are pretty grim. I was also interested in how the entire black community of Forsyth was run out of town in 1912 -- I mean, how do you do that? And found this article:

http://www.journal-news.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/07/09/hjn070906Expulsions.html

I'd never heard of racial expulsions in the U.S. -- eliminating whole communities of black people.

Okay, I'm heading out to fix my McCain sign. It was stuck in the snow, the snow melted and it slid out into the driveway and I ran over it!!!

 

[Charade]

Show them this..that'll solve the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyMsKKGgIYg

I've seen that guy before. I'm just stunned that not just one, but more than one black person feels that way.

Talk about playing the victim card. He played the whole deck at once.

IMO, that's a dangerous person. But free speech and all...

 

[Charade]

Oh my gosh -- I'm back -- I drove out my driveway and my neighborhood is FLOODED. I couldn't get anywhere -- the bridge to the other side of town is covered in water.

Anyway -- I went back and read the Wikipedia entry for this county. This is interesting -- as of 2006 it was in the top 10 fastest growing counties in the United States. They're building schools like crazy. If anyone here posts from Forsyth County Georgia, I would love to know what your community is like and what you think on the topic. (I just want to say, too, I don't everyone who lives there is a racist!!!!!) It appears to be an affluent community -- the 13th richest in the United States according to Forbes magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_County,_Georgia

Gary Indiana

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1827000.html

 

[agentpleakley]

Gary Indiana

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1827000.html

and Memphis

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/4748000.html

 

[chris1gill]

I wanted to post this here, although I am certain most will not care to try to understand it. She says it much better than I and she certainly has more experience and credibility than I do. However, I do agree with what she says.

Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective (by Diana Butler Bass)


http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith--a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ's body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that "anyone with experience teaching American religion" would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters--accusing white Christians of maintaining "ease in Zion" while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. "Fellow-citizens," Douglass proclaims, "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them." He goes on to calls American conduct "hideous and revolting" and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, "For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective--the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends--even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright's "radical" sermons today, I do not hear the words of a "dangerous" preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant--I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that--as I had to learn--flows from the throne of God.

Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).

 

[agentpleakley]

I wanted to post this here, although I am certain most will not care to try to understand it. She says it much better than I and she certainly has more experience and credibility than I do. However, I do agree with what she says.

Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective (by Diana Butler Bass)


http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith--a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ's body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that "anyone with experience teaching American religion" would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters--accusing white Christians of maintaining "ease in Zion" while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. "Fellow-citizens," Douglass proclaims, "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them." He goes on to calls American conduct "hideous and revolting" and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, "For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective--the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends--even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright's "radical" sermons today, I do not hear the words of a "dangerous" preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant--I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that--as I had to learn--flows from the throne of God.

Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).

Thanks for posting the article. I've heard the same over and over on FOX. This is not 1852 .... this is not 1968 .... what is offensive about Wright's message is (1) it is ignorant --e.g., the US invented HIV to destroy the African-American community & (2) it is politic-ing, not preaching -- e.g. Bill Clinton did to us what he did to Monica Lewinsky. I have no problem with his other messages -- stay married, financial responsibilty, etc. -- but come on...his reference to Bill Clinton was very crude -- (And I don't even like B.C.).

 

[chris1gill]

Thanks for posting the article. I've heard the same over and over on FOX. This is not 1852 .... this is not 1968 .... what is offensive about Wright's message is (1) it is ignorant --e.g., the US invented HIV to destroy the African-American community & (2) it is politic-ing, not preaching -- e.g. Bill Clinton did to us what he did to Monica Lewinsky. I have no problem with his other messages -- stay married, financial responsibilty, etc. -- but come on...his reference to Bill Clinton was very crude -- (And I don't even like B.C.).

I agree with you in some regards, I think MUCH of what he has to say is historically based, particularly since he came out of the 60's. There were a few things I found offensive, in it's true sense. The U.S. inventing HIV (although that rumor was started by the whites when AIDS came about in the 80's, I remember listening to them thinking they were nuts), and then the reference to BC. Also the God D**N America, I trust Obama when he says he did not hear this.

But to that end, Black churches are known for their social politicing on the pulpit, right or wrong, it's done all the time.. Actually, our Evangelical church growing up did the same thing... They damned those that did not agree with them on so many issues, I cannot name them all. Personally in this case, I didn't like the tone, but I'm not used to the tone, but if you just bring a notch down, listen to what he says, most of it is historically based & then there are a few nutty remarks... I've heard some of his other sermons that were much more like the sermons you would expect to hear in a white church...

I just think there are a lot of dynamics when you look at the far right religion, the far left religion, and then I find the truth lies somewhere in between with most people.

On an aside, I was shocked to find this church has EIGHT THOUSAND ATTENDEES.... Wow, that's a big church!

 

[CPT Tripss]

What is that???

You know - liberals and the guys with the other agenda. Us and them

 

[DISUNC]

Do Wright's Remarks Make You More or Less Likely to Vote for Barack Obama?

More Likely
11%

Less Likely
56%

No Impact
30%

Not Sure
2%


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

 

[CowboyCO]

Again, you show your maturity level and go with the attack. I've not bought into the conspiracy theory. I asked if anyone knew of any links out that countered it so I could SEE both sides.

You've not even begun to attack the points made in those videos. I must assume you simply cannot, or aren't informed enough to know what points you should counter.

If they're false, I'm sure I'll eventually figure it out.

I see you didn't attempt to counter where I said that Bush specifically states (and in the video, it's coming directly out of his mouth) he saw the first plane crash into those towers. Do you have ANY link handy that shows this video was aired on Sept, 11 rather than the 12th and this video series states? If not, it would have been impossible for him to have seen it hit. He couldn't have mistaken it for the 2nd either since we watched him being informed of that.

Can you counter how they found the high jackers passports in the rubble? I would have thought, since being in the plane and all, that they'd have been destroyed immediately. Those speaking out about the rubble say at most, they might have found half of a phone face plate. They'd go on to say that you didn't see items, only bits and pieces of them (and everyone always said as much) yet the government had the passports from the rubble and instantly knew who was responsible?

Say that in a court of law.

Maybe you can counter that it took 144 days for Bush to grant an independent investigation (though it really wasn't independent at all - if the videos are correct). Maybe you should look how long it took the government to grant an independent investigation after, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Titanic, the space shuttle disaster, and JFK's assassination. They weren't anywhere near 144 days OR EVEN 10% as long. Then you might want to dig in (I plan on doing exactly this when I get the time btw), and see how much money was given for each of these, and then compare it to the amount Bush initially gave. Then add the wee bit more he upped it. If the videos are true, it's nothing short of appalling (but you'll have to dig a bit to see what those figures are, I won't make it easy for you - though I doubt you'd bother actually trying to find the facts).

Then, you might want to ask yourself why Bush and Cheney wouldn't testify under oath. When they spoke at all, it was mandated that they be interviewed together. There would be no transcripts made. There would be no recordings of any kind. They would not give opening statements. Any and all notes taken would be thoroughly looked over before they could keep them. and on, and on, and on...

In a court of law, that would be "Consciousness Of Guilt."

So don't tell me you know what you're talking about.

Edward Griffin is a major 9/11 conspiracy theorist says the following about the the president's statement about the first plane:

"It was widely rumored following 9/11 that President Bush publicly claimed that he was watching TV in his limousine when he saw the first plane hit the Twin Towers. If true, this was an amazing statement, because there is no record of that event being broadcast over TV. Why should it have been? There was no reason for a TV camera to be focused on the Twin Towers before the first plane crash. How could the President see what didn't exist? I assumed that the rumors were not accurate and thought no more of it.

Then, at the end of January, 2006, we received a link to an audio recording of Mr. Bush's speech and, lo and behold, that's exactly what he said. This was the signal for a rash of theories about the existence of a top-secret closed-circuit TV network that provided this image only to the President and his senior staff members. The implication was that they were anticipating the event and wanted to have a front-row seat to confirm its execution.

As everyone should know by now, I am convinced that President Bush had ample foreknowledge of the pending attacks but chose to let them happen, because that provided the apparent moral justification for military action in the Middle East and expansion of political power in the U.S. But I cannot endorse the theory that he was watching the event on a closed-circuit network.

First of all, it's not logical. If I were anticipating an event like this and wanted to appear taken by surprise, I would prefer to know as few of the details as possible so I couldn't be exposed by accomplices or tripped up by statements like this. I would set the master plan into motion and then let my generals take care of the implementation. The last thing I would do would be to have a team of technicians and assistants aware that I was watching a TV image of the side of a building in anticipation of a airplane crashing into it.

Secondly, there is a far more plausible explanation. Most people I speak with about 9/11 honestly believe they saw both planes strike the buildings. When I tell them the first impact was not shown on television, they look puzzled and ask: "Are you sure?" This is understandable. The two impacts were only eighteen minutes apart. Although there were no images of the first plane, the aftermath of its impact was widely viewed. By the time of the second impact, there were multiple cameras available to capture it from diverse angles and, from that moment forward, television viewers were inundated with replays of these images.

It is important to emphasize that the same plane was viewed from multiple locations, creating the impression that they were different planes. This replay lasted for several weeks and, in fact, continues even today. The drama and horror of the event were so intense that, for most of us, everything has become blurred into a mental montage of repeated airplane crashes, smoke and fire, collapsing buildings, and desperate people. It is no wonder that most people believe they saw both planes strike their targets. I don't see why the President, who is not noted for mental clarity, should be any different.

The point is this. We should not waste our time weaving a theory about closed-circuit TV when there is so much hard evidence of prior knowledge that cannot be so easily explained. We do our cause a disservice when we get away from the provable facts and wander into the realm of conjecture. It's in that realm that we lose credibility and look silly to the very people we are trying to reach with the truth. "


Why the stringent rules for testimony for the 9/11 Commission? Because the President of the United States can exercise executive privilege in order to not establish a precedent for subsequent presidents to be required to testify at the whim of Congress. This precedent could lead to a majority party Congress forcing a minority party president to testify on nearly any subject at their whim. The executive privilege is a check between Congress and The Executive branch. It is common for all presidents to invoke executive privilege for themselves and members of their staff. Just as FDR did not testify under oath after December 7.

The independent 9/11 investigation was not authorized by the President. The president cannot authorize such an investigation, as per the seperation of powers. The 9/11 commission was created by an act of Congress, and the signed by the president as all acts of Congress must be in order to be enacted. As for why Congress waited to empower the Commission, ask your Congressman.

As for the passports. 4 were discovered after 9/11. One on the street near the WTC in excellent condition, but soaked in jet fuel. There was a significant amount of debris from the actual planes that went completely through the plane and out the other side, landing on the street and on the rooftops of adjacent buildings. There does does not seem to be a good explanation of why this passport was undamaged. 2 other passports were recover from flight 93 in varying states of severe damage. the final passport was in luggage that had not made it on the hijacked flight. It's in the 9/11 report. There were also visa fragments, ID card fragments.



This is SOOO OT and I am tired of responding about it. You say "What about this that I saw in the video? And this?" Then you admit you have not even done any research yourself to confirm or deny the accuracy and claims of the video. You accept it as truth.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching 9/11. I read the 9/11 report. I have researched many of the claims of Consipracy Theorists and found everyhting that I have researched is based on faulty science, innacurate quotes and supposition. We were attacked. Although there was plenty of evidence to put all the pieces together prior to 9/11, no one had very many of the pieces and the intelligence wasn't plugged in like it is now. End of my participation on this tangent. If you want links, then google "9/11 debunking" and follow the links.

 

[denisenh]

I wanted to post this here, although I am certain most will not care to try to understand it. She says it much better than I and she certainly has more experience and credibility than I do. However, I do agree with what she says.

Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective (by Diana Butler Bass)


http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith--a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ's body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that "anyone with experience teaching American religion" would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters--accusing white Christians of maintaining "ease in Zion" while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. "Fellow-citizens," Douglass proclaims, "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them." He goes on to calls American conduct "hideous and revolting" and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, "For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective--the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends--even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright's "radical" sermons today, I do not hear the words of a "dangerous" preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant--I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that--as I had to learn--flows from the throne of God.

Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).

Talk about sugar coating it and wrapping it up in a pretty package! How sweet!

The nasty sermon that Rev Wright preached is simply inexcusable, period
I think that anyone who buys into "Obama didn't know that his pastor was like that" or whatever, is blind to the fact that Obama is not a nice person**gasp**. He cares about himself and his goals, not yours, not mine, not Americas.

What the above blogger states above is mild preaching compared to what Rev. Wright did this ONCE (if you believe that it was one time... I don't.)
I have been in church when we have had a wonderful, wonderful brown skinned (African American) minister. She was lively and inspiring to all in attendance. It was just the best! I loved it!

Rev Wrong is full of nastiness.... and Obama and his family admire him. For the love of America people, open your eyes!

I so admired Obama until I heard his quiet riot speech. It didn't seem right and now even more than then, I KNOW that what I thought then was correct. I had to see him for what he is....what he really is.

Please don't just keep pulling out anything and everything to save Obama! If you have to keep doing, keep digging for it, it is almost like you have to convince yourself that you are right, for the sake of being right.
This is our country's Presidency we are talking about!!!

He obviously has too many fooled. Good for him. Bush did it, Obama can too, oh yes he can!!

 

[themilesfamily]

Gary Indiana

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18/1827000.html

Charade, Gary may have a high black population -- but whites still own 37% of the businesses in that community. In Forsyth County blacks only own 1.7% of the businesses -- it's back to how do you get a job in that county if you're black and the community doesn't want you? If you're white in Gary -- at least you can work.

So if you're suggesting that it's a similar situation between the two communities I totally disagree.

It's even more extreme in Memphis. In Memphis whites make up 34% of the population but own 75% of the businesses.