I watched the video the asian times was referencing, and I loved that Hannity wouldn't let Wright get his words in. Although that's Hannity's style.

 

One cannot brush over black liberation theology by the writings of just one of its founders. Consider the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was a black liberation theologian. Every faith has its bruises. Consider that fact that the Southern Baptist denomination was formed b/c of their support for slavery. Are Southern Baptists racist?

 

Some are. Racism has no bounds. That is why it is so prevalent. Wright and the media perpetuate it with their message.

Like I said, I'm not going to convince some (mainly you two) that Wright isn't racist. However, I would appreciate it if you would actually watch the videos and give it more thought than just a sound byte or what Hannity, Limbaugh, and Faux News are telling you. I brought up the SBC b/c what is to say that Trinity UCC has rejected the "racist" parts of Cone's writings. The SBC has rejected the racist parts of their heritage but still adhere to about 99.9% of the theology.

 

 

Count me in that number also. And by the way, it sure doesn't sound like Wright or his congregation have rejected this racist, anti-American message.

Count me as a fourth.

 

Anyone who says that the US deserved the 9/11 attacks because of their past is someone that is not worth my time, anyone who said that the US developed the AIDS virus to kill blacks is not worthy of any consideration from me.

 

I put Wright in the same crackpot catagory as Fred Phelps.

 

There is no chance that I would have ever voted for Obama before hering his pastor's garbage, but now I feel some vindication in my views about Obama.

 

 

Well, you may call me a crackpot too. :lol:

 

While I don't believe the US deserved the 9/11 attacks, I do recognize that the US's Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, is a likely catylst to the event.

Well, you may call me a crackpot too. :lol:

 

While I don't believe the US deserved the 9/11 attacks, I do recognize that the US's Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, is a likely catylst to the event.

 

So, do you believe America's foreign policy was the likely catylst for the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

On Wright, happened on his church's TV broadcast this morning at 7:30 AM on BET. It was interesting and filled with the "3 things church people do not want you to talk about" Race, Religion and Politics. Based on John 4 and Jesus meeting the Samaritan water lady.

So, do you believe America's foreign policy was the likely catylst for the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

 

 

Apples to oranges.

Apples to oranges.

 

why?

why?

 

 

For the same reason that most of you say it's apples to oranges to compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam. :lol:

For the same reason that most of you say it's apples to oranges to compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam. :lol:

 

I have not said that and feel it is really relevant to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

 

Since the point of history is to learn from it, I think it would be extremely shortsighted to NOT look at our past military actions and our involvement in them when looking at our present and future military actions.

 

So, why is 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor, apples and oranges.

 

BTW, I went straight to the ascension.

I have not said that and feel it is really relevant to compare Iraq to Vietnam.

 

Since the point of history is to learn from it, I think it would be extremely shortsighted to NOT look at our past military actions and our involvement in them when looking at our present and future military actions.

 

So, why is 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor, apples and oranges.

 

BTW, I went straight to the ascension.

 

 

I noticed!

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position regarding Iraq vs. Vietnam.:thumb:

 

To be honest, in some ways, the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS an attack born of US policy...

 

 

In September 1940, the U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.

 

In April 1941, the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviet Union to help prevent an attack from that direction if they were to go to war with Britain or the U.S. while taking a bigger bite out of Southeast Asia.

 

June 1941 through the end of July 1941, Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.

 

Toward the end of 1941, with the Soviets seemingly on the verge of defeat by the Axis powers, Japan seized the opportunity to try to take the oil resources of Southeast Asia. The U.S. wanted to stop Japanese expansion but the American people were not willing to go to war to stop it. The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory.

 

Prior to December 1941, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and ... to prepare for war.

 

After becoming Japan's premier in mid-October, General Tojo Hideki See Books about Tojo secretly set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war.

 

The Japanese military was asked to devise a war plan. They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.

 

The U.S. had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew an attack was imminent. A warning had been sent from Washington, but it arrived too late.

 

Early warning radar was new technology. Japanese planes were spotted by radar before the attack, but they were assumed to be a flight of American B-17s due in from the West Coast.

 

I would say these similarities are worth noting:

US Foreign Policy-specifically the attempts by the US to weaken the Japanese threat while remaining neutral in the war.

 

Advance warning-although it's clear the warning of the attack arrived too late in the instance of Pearl Harbor, the warnings were (sort of) too late in the instance of the 9/11 attacks. They had been noted, but the right people didn't convey them or heed them.

 

Power-Both the Japanese and the Islamic terrorists felt (feel) they are the "master race" so to speak.

I noticed!

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position regarding Iraq vs. Vietnam.:thumb:

 

To be honest, in some ways, the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS an attack born of US policy...

 

 

In September 1940, the U.S. placed an embargo on Japan by prohibiting exports of steel, scrap iron, and aviation fuel to Japan, due to Japan's takeover of northern French Indochina.

 

In April 1941, the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with the Soviet Union to help prevent an attack from that direction if they were to go to war with Britain or the U.S. while taking a bigger bite out of Southeast Asia.

 

June 1941 through the end of July 1941, Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. This prevented Japan from buying oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless.

 

Toward the end of 1941, with the Soviets seemingly on the verge of defeat by the Axis powers, Japan seized the opportunity to try to take the oil resources of Southeast Asia. The U.S. wanted to stop Japanese expansion but the American people were not willing to go to war to stop it. The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory.

 

Prior to December 1941, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and ... to prepare for war.

 

After becoming Japan's premier in mid-October, General Tojo Hideki See Books about Tojo secretly set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war.

 

The Japanese military was asked to devise a war plan. They proposed to sweep into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines, in addition to establishing a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was that the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based in Pearl Harbor could foil their plans. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack.

 

The U.S. had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew an attack was imminent. A warning had been sent from Washington, but it arrived too late.

 

Early warning radar was new technology. Japanese planes were spotted by radar before the attack, but they were assumed to be a flight of American B-17s due in from the West Coast.

 

I would say these similarities are worth noting:

US Foreign Policy-specifically the attempts by the US to weaken the Japanese threat while remaining neutral in the war.

 

Advance warning-although it's clear the warning of the attack arrived too late in the instance of Pearl Harbor, the warnings were (sort of) too late in the instance of the 9/11 attacks. They had been noted, but the right people didn't convey them or heed them.

 

Power-Both the Japanese and the Islamic terrorists felt (feel) they are the "master race" so to speak.

 

On the bolded, 1) in today's world and mindset, it would be sold that FDR purposely delayed the warning so that he would get the war he wanted. 2) So, how does American foreign relations in the ME play into the last bolded in regards to the catylst to the actions? Is it because we don't agree that Islamic terrorists are the master race? And so, we are partly responsible for the 9/11 attack because we don't agree that they are the superior religion and race?

 

I am lost on your point that we are at least partly responsible for 9/11. UNLESS, like the little boy who stands up to the playground bully, he is responsible for getting beat up because he stood up to the bully, that is what you are talking about.

 

If the latter is what you are talking about, I could agree with that and would consider that to be a positive.

On the bolded, 1) in today's world and mindset, it would be sold that FDR purposely delayed the warning so that he would get the war he wanted. 2) So, how does American foreign relations in the ME play into the last bolded in regards to the catylst to the actions? Is it because we don't agree that Islamic terrorists are the master race? And so, we are partly responsible for the 9/11 attack because we don't agree that they are the superior religion and race?

 

I am lost on your point that we are at least partly responsible for 9/11. UNLESS, like the little boy who stands up to the playground bully, he is responsible for getting beat up because he stood up to the bully, that is what you are talking about.

 

If the latter is what you are talking about, I could agree with that and would consider that to be a positive.

 

I in no way I would ever equate us to the little boy on the playground. :lol:

 

In some ways, we are the bully. In other ways we are the benefactor. The issue is that we have historically flexed our muscles and, right or wrongly, the flexing hasn't been received well by certain areas of the world. Whether we were right or we were wrong, there will inevitably be a future consequence of conflict.

 

So, there is responsibility that must be taken on the part of the US for the attacks. While unprovoked, our decades of meddling in the Middle East helped create the animosity. Whether you believe our policies were correct or not, even the most well-intentioned meddling will bear consequences. I belive that we should accept that. We may have been "victims", but ignoring the intelligence preceeding the attacks was a pretty naive response. If we want to play on the world-stage, we need to realize that we are vulnerable, if we aren't going to be prepared.

Make me a third. And, yes, I watched your video attachments, though honestly I have no idea as to the relevence of the second video. So their church does many, many good things (I'm sure they do). That has no bearing on the racist-filled remarks preached by their pastor.

I agree with this assessment, he says many good things; however, they are surpassed by his racist comments.

I agree with this assessment, he says many good things; however, they are surpassed by his racist comments.

 

 

So, in a simplified example, you're saying that in the heat of debate, if I make some bonehead remark, that would eclipse any and all other good points I'd made? I should be judged solely on the bonehead remark, and all the rest should be thrown out the window?

So, in a simplified example, you're saying that in the heat of debate, if I make some bonehead remark, that would eclipse any and all other good points I'd made? I should be judged solely on the bonehead remark, and all the rest should be thrown out the window?

No, I'm saying that if you are preaching to your congregation and you use MANY racist remarks as Reverend Wright did you will like be judged by others as racist.