Really?...well first of all he made no mention of the competing churches that brought Christ to the Governor in the first place, nor does he mention that Pilate repeatedly asked "what crime has this man committed" no mention that Pilate only wished to let Jesus go - but finally gave into the church leaders as to avoid local rioting..
Wright:
1) "The Pharisees were trying to stop the proceedings"...
2) "These people (calling for Christ death) were blinded by their circumstance" (military occupation of Roman soldiers)
3) "Pontius Pilate was the Governor (he made sure to point out he was Italian) he not only had the political power but the military power - and it was Roman soldiers who kept Jesus up all night, it was Roman soldiers and it was the Italian army that led Jesus to calvary
4) "It was the Italian army that forced Simon to carry the cross".

Gravid - no disrespect - but what part of that did you not understand? In his entire twisted story of Jesus's death he NEVER MENTIONS that it was the Church that brought Jesus to Pilate, that they insisted upon him being executed when Pilate at first just wanted to imprison him when he agreed to their demands...that Pilate "washed his hands" to show the crowd that he did not agree with the execution but only gave into the CHURCH's demands for his death???

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

Thank you for linking this, Corp. Very informative. Here's my take on it.

Part I: Those who are finding this an angry diatribe, or believe that Wright is blaming the Roman occupiers for the death of Jesus, completely misunderstand what he is saying. He is preaching against blind anger here. The theme being, "They could not see the things that make for peace." The reason being, he says, that the Israelites were occupied by a foreign power; they had no control over their own government; the Romans held all the political and military power; and so the people were angry and wanted revenge -- and could not see the things that make for peace. As for blaming the Romans, he is not doing that, rather, he is saying that the people were so lacking in control over their own circumstances, their own government, that they had to send Jesus to this foreign occupying power to do justice in their own land. And that, of course, is true. On whoever's behalf Jesus was put to death, it was the Romans who did the actual deed, because (and this is the point) they were the only ones with the authority to do so. This, Wright was saying, explains -- but does not excuse -- the anger and thirst for revenge on the part of the Jews, which in the end led to Jesus' death.

Part II: Here, he gets a bit carried away, doesn't he? The theme is still about peace, though. He's not excusing or condoning anyone's violence. And remember the underlying business about the Israelite crowd calling Jesus a king: "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord." And Jesus weeping, because they don't understand his mission, because they are confusing God and government. And then, yes, he goes into a long long long spiel about the sins of the world's governing bodies, particularly (but not limited to) the U.S. government, and it does seem to me that the underlying point is in some danger of getting lost. (I'll see if he gets back to it in part 3.) Mind you, I disagreed with none of it. The moral equivalency of our war in Iraq with al-Qaeda's war on us? Yes. I agree with that. In both cases, we have an unprovoked aggression completely impossible to justify on any moral basis whatsoever. In both cases, we have a situation where the aggressor might talk about the evils perpetrated by America or by Saddam Hussein, and that talk is true, but it in no way justifies what was done in response. 9/11 had NO justice behind it, no matter how many crimes America has committed, and NEITHER did the war in Iraq, and for EXACTLY the same reason: because those actions are wrong no matter who they're done to. And underlying all of this is the idea of confusing God with a nation, or a government, and getting lost in all the anger. But it seemed to me that his point maybe got a little lost, too.

Part 3: Here's the part with that "God damn America" line. However, he didn't say just "God damn America," he said as long as America continues to . . . well, hell, I forgot his exact words and they were good, but the implication was about failing to uphold justice and the ideals on which we are supposedly founded, and in addition he wasn't saying it for himself, he was saying, "this is what someone will say, if you're in that situation, how can you say 'God bless America,' anyone in that situation will say 'God DAMN America.'" Again: understanding the anger, but presenting that as a problem. (He also apologized to the congregation for saying that "God damn.") Confusing government with God. In the end, the point was a very Christian one, to put one's trust in God rather than in the state or the nation, and to recognize that God, not the state or the nation, is the source of what is good in our lives. And you can't make that point if you don't also make it clear that you understand the anger that is in the hearts of many people who are listening to you, because if you don't understand it they will not hear you but will turn away.

Oh, yeah -- he was, I think, factually wrong about the government inventing the AIDS virus. But that's a quibble. He was right about all the other things he said it lied about.

I had no quarrel with any of this (except that). Well, and except I'm not a Christian, but still that's just another way of saying what I would say, that peace is found in our own hearts and in our relation to the All, and it can never be found in rage. Hey, he's a Christian pastor, got to say it in Christianese, I understand. Cool.

TS - I disagree with your part 1 analogy.
As I listed he said "it was the Italian army that led Jesus to the cross"...as if to say that if the Romans were not present then Jesus would not have been crucified....there is nothing that would make this statement true - Pilate repeatedly tried to release Jesus, but the church leaders would have none of it. The only effect the Romans had in Jesus death was that it took longer, the churches would have stoned him to death on the spot.

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

You're getting seriously side-tracked here. He was preaching a sermon, not giving a history lesson, and the only reason the Romans were important in it in any way was because their occupation of Israel made the Jews mad, and caused them to fail to see the things that lead to peace. The point he was making had nothing to do with who was to blame for executing Jesus, whether it be the Romans, the Israelites, or anyone else.

wow, so that’s what he said or is that what he meant? Because he did a lousy job of it, if that’s what he meant. I cannot se that. No, I would have to semantically bend myself double to see that is more apt a description.

Last time I checked one speaks in plain language so as to impart their message, I have been told blacks are under educated, so they are going to read all that into his sermon, he was not using parables, he was making it pretty darn clear to me. I read his transcript because watching can skew objectivity, and I didn't get that, I read it twice, he bangs it out time and again and reinforces points that, if he were providing the message you entail would have been simple to infer if, that had been is message.

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

Imperator, here are some direct quotes:

Does that make it a bit clearer?

You have to be kidding, and yes we are getting sidetracked...ao I will simply say that the Jews hated Jesus, they would have stoned him on the spot - the only reason he received any trial was because they were occupied.

So back to Wright - the sermon is terrible, nothing more than hate speech and hypocrisy.

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

Pretty obviously Wright understood their situation a good deal better than you do. The Pharisees hated him, and perhaps the official priesthood. An awful lot of people adored him, though. If they turned against him, it was for exactly the reason Wright suggested: they wanted him to be a king and drive the Romans out. He refused.

Nonsense. There isn't a particle of hate speech anywhere in it, not one word. Nor do I see any hypocrisy. I thought it was a great sermon. Except for the business about AIDS, I agreed with every bit of it, and even that's a quibble, because although I don't think the government did invent AIDS, there have been plenty of things equally vile that it has done, so morally I wouldn't put it past 'em.

Or do you think it's "hate speech" to accuse people of crimes that they have, in fact, committed?

No it is hate speech to blame all the troubles of one race on the other without the slightest mention of how badly blacks screw themselves.

To continuously drone on about how white people treat black people without mentioning that black women TODAY are living like slaves BY black men in Africa NOW...to mention the failures of white people without speaking on the failures of black people....this IS hate speech...it's only result is everyone walking out of that church with animosity to white people...especially the young and impressionable - what possibly could a young black person think listening to this guy every Sunday? - that white people are the bane of the world - and the cause of all their pain.

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

He never did that. Never even came close to it. The only mention of white people as to blame for anything specified rich white people, not all white people. No race as a whole was blamed for anything in that sermon. I also recall vividly the words, "oppressors come in all colors."

Then you heard a different sermon.

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

No. I CORRECTLY heard the one that was given.

you bet....where's that list of flamers I keep...

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States

The problem here, Iam, is that you are evaluating the sermon as if it were about race and not finding it fair. But that sermon wasn't about race, it was about anger, and about overcoming anger (however justified) and finding the way to peace. About how anger blinds us so that we cannot see the way to peace.

He never once blamed anything on all white people, or on any other race, either. He did go into considerable length about the historic misbehavior of governments, and spent quite a bit of time on the one under which he lives. He talked about things that make his congregation angry, to put the idea into a context that they could understand. Why should he mention African sexism when that is something not one member of his congregation will ever see or be faced with? Just because it would make you feel he's being even-handed and fair? You're not even IN his congregation, so why should he care?

Do you think he wasn't accusing black people in America (never mind Africa) of anything? What do you think the sermon was even about in the first place? Who do you think are the angry people he was talking to, the ones he was metaphorically comparing to the Israelites, who can't see the way to peace? Why do you think he told them at the end to leave their troubles at the altar and not take them home again?

The sermon was about the things said in the sermon...I don't give a patoot what meaning someone tries to give it, of course the sermon was about the weakness and evil of governments and the steadfast/unchanging good of God...that's fine if he left it there, but why then continuously and consistently throughout the sermon bang the race gong? If one wants to talk about the evils of governments and missplaced trust - why always MAKE SURE you mention that "oh by the way the governments are all WHITE"...

__________________

The most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility 2008 - David Walker, Controller General of the United States