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.

 

 

Honestly, RTS, you are one of the posters who've indicated that this is a "no grey area" issue. Whether a minister preaching to a congregation, or a poster on a forum, what's the difference? Why should my bonehead remarks not weigh as much as his? I have no idea how many people may read what I write. So, I don't feel the audience is necessarily smaller.

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?

You keep using singular nouns to describe a series of racist and anti-American statements by Jeremiah Wright. Does awarding the racist anti-Semite Louis Farakahn Trinity's lifetime achievement award fall under the "some bonehead remark" umbrella? How many isolated racist remarks must one make before they constitute an unacceptable pattern of behavior?

 

Does the fact that Hamas distributes humanitarian aid to hungry Palestinians excuse its terrorist attacks on innocent civilians? I think not.

 

Racism cannot be dismissed simply because the racist has a warm-fuzzy side.

You keep using singular nouns to describe a series of racist and anti-American statements by Jeremiah Wright. Does awarding the racist anti-Semite Louis Farakahn Trinity's lifetime achievement award fall under the "some bonehead remark" umbrella? How many isolated racist remarks must one make before they constitute an unacceptable pattern of behavior?

I thought this thread was titled "Wright in Context", so I was addressing my comments to that end.

 

Does the fact that Hamas distributes humanitarian aid to hungry Palestinians excuse its terrorist attacks on innocent civilians? I think not.

Conversely, because Israel takes care of it's hungry, does that make them any less culpable for their stance in resolving the Palestinian crisis?

 

Racism cannot be dismissed simply because the racist has a warm-fuzzy side.

 

Agreed, but it can't be portrayed as worse by one side or the other (black vs. white in this case).

Honestly, RTS, you are one of the posters who've indicated that this is a "no grey area" issue. Whether a minister preaching to a congregation, or a poster on a forum, what's the difference? Why should my bonehead remarks not weigh as much as his? I have no idea how many people may read what I write. So, I don't feel the audience is necessarily smaller.

Well, for starters you and I are not Priests, Reverend's, Ministers etc... Not very Christlike for the head of a Christian church, wouldn't you agree?

Well, for starters you and I are not Priests, Reverend's, Ministers etc... Not very Christlike for the head of a Christian church, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

Or a very Christlike way to live an ordinary Christian life. I don't think one has to be a Priest, Reverend or Minister to be responsible for one's words and deeds. I also don't think it's more wrong for a Pastor to say them than for an ordinary person professing to be Christian.

Or a very Christlike way to live an ordinary Christian life. I don't think one has to be a Priest, Reverend or Minister to be responsible for one's words and deeds. I also don't think it's more wrong for a Pastor to say them than for an ordinary person professing to be Christian.

I do, they are supposed to help us on our path.

I haven't heard you or anyone else on this board utter anything remotely close to the things he said and I know I haven't either. If we did, we wouldn't be posting right now.

I thought this thread was titled "Wright in Context", so I was addressing my comments to that end.

The proper context is that Wright has made a series of racist, anti-American comments and his church proudly declares itself an adherent of the black liberation theology founded by James Cone. Treating Wright's comments as if they were made in a singular instance is not addressing them in context.

Conversely, because Israel takes care of it's hungry, does that make them any less culpable for their stance in resolving the Palestinian crisis?

Had the US allowed Israel to fully exercise its God-given right to self defense, Israelis and Palestinians would have settled their differences decades aga and would be living in peace today.

Agreed, but it can't be portrayed as worse by one side or the other (black vs. white in this case).

The amount of public support shown for Jeremiah Wright following the disclosure of his racist rants dwarfs the support that white racists like David Duke have received from mainstream conservatives.

I'm going to post once only, so no need to reply, I'm not coming back in on this one. One, I find it very hard to understand the posters who are justifying what Wright said. There is nothing out of context. The words he chose to use came in a premeditated sermon. No heat of the moment here. I am just dismayed that anyone see the words and actions of this man acceptable.

Two, Pearl Harbor was an act of war commited by another country's military against a military installation. 911 was not anything remotely similar to that. Definetly apples and oranges.

The proper context is that Wright has made a series of racist, anti-American comments and his church proudly declares itself an adherent of the black liberation theology founded by James Cone. Treating Wright's comments as if they were made in a singular instance is not addressing them in context.

Had the US allowed Israel to fully exercise its God-given right to self defense, Israelis and Palestinians would have settled their differences decades aga and would be living in peace today. The amount of public support shown for Jeremiah Wright following the disclosure of his racist rants dwarfs the support that white racists like David Duke have received from mainstream conservatives.

 

 

I just cannot, as a student of history, agree with this statement. At all.

I just cannot, as a student of history, agree with this statement. At all.

The history of Israel is a case study of how appeasing terrorists is bad national policy. Our stated national policy has been to refuse to negotiate with terrorists, yet we continuously pressure Israel to make concessions to terrorists thugs. The result has been a bloody stalemate.

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?

 

But his remarks weren't boneheaded because boneheaded in my mind (limited as it is) implies a mistake. His remarks were thought out, they were hateful and intended to get a rise out of people. You're also not the spiritual advisor to a candidate for president of the United States. That means that everything he cans is and should be held to a much higher stantard the what ordinary Joes like me or you say.

 

I remember in the last campaign that many leftys were up in arms over Republican candidates speaking at Bob Jones University. There was even debate on the floor of one of the houses of congress wanting to rebuke those that spoke there, yet those same people are more then willing to give Obama a pass for attending a very divisive church for over 20 years.

 

If it was determined that McCain attended a church where the pastor made a statement in a sermon that was even remotely negative towards blacks the hue and cry would be overwealming.

 

To be completely honest I have less of a problem with Wright's remarks (he's a boob in the same ilk of Jackson and Sharpton as far as I'm concerned) then I do with the double standard that is applied to him and those on the left vs. things said by those on the right. One of the most revered Senators on the left is a doddering old loon from West Virginia who used to be in the KKK, he is held in high esteem. Another Senator, who's polotics are on the right, makes a statement to a fellow Senator at a birthday party that the left says proves he is a racist and he if forced to give up his leadership position in the Senate.

The history of Israel is a case study of how appeasing terrorists is bad national policy. Our stated national policy has been to refuse to negotiate with terrorists, yet we continuously pressure Israel to make concessions to terrorists thugs. The result has been a bloody stalemate.

 

 

 

UHH.

 

The history of Israel is a case study of how angry a group of people will become after you displace them.

 

It is such a disputed territory because of the fact that there were Arabs that were living there before the Zionist movement brought wave of Jewish immigrants into the area.

 

Imagine if a group of people decided that they were going to establish a nation in Texas (say mexicans). Americans wouldn't be too cool with that.

 

I don't care who you are. What happened in Palestine at the begining of the 20th century was pretty dirty (like alot of stuff that was happening at the time).

 

Now they have a mess over there.

UHH.

 

The history of Israel is a case study of how angry a group of people will become after you displace them.

 

It is such a disputed territory because of the fact that there were Arabs that were living there before the Zionist movement brought wave of Jewish immigrants into the area.

 

Imagine if a group of people decided that they were going to establish a nation in Texas (say mexicans). Americans wouldn't be too cool with that.

 

I don't care who you are. What happened in Palestine at the begining of the 20th century was pretty dirty (like alot of stuff that was happening at the time).

 

Now they have a mess over there.

Wrong thread to debate this issue. US policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a dismal failure. Let us agree to disagree on the reasons that it has failed or discuss it at a later date in an appropriate thread.

A Conversation with James Cone

 

Jeremiah Wright's mentor explains black liberation theology.

Many Germans ignored Hitler's attacks on the Jews, because he did some things that helped the German people feel better about theirselves. I see the same thing here.

 

Even if the Rev. Wright speech had never surfaced, I would never vote for either the Democractic canidates as they view the government as the solution to every problem, when they create most of them. Government is to be limited., there is a place for government regulation, but not government contol of our lives or being a parent.