Oh, good, you DO have a clue what it was about. I was beginning to wonder . . .

Did you also understand, though, that it was about overcoming anger?

He didn't say that, either. In fact, didn't you catch the part about Egypt, and the specific statement that oppressors come in all colors?

As to why he didn't leave it at that, I imagine it was because he didn't want to put his congregation to sleep.

You know, I think a part of how one reacts to this thing depends on whether one identifies with one's race or not. I'm white, but I think of myself as myself, not as a white guy. When he's talking about rich white guys running the U.S. government for their own benefit, do I feel insulted? No, because I'm NOT a rich white guy running the U.S. government for my own benefit. I have exactly two adjectives in common with them, and not any of the important ones at that. Never once while listening to that sermon did I feel he was accusing ME of anything. And yet I'm a white guy. Obviously, though, you felt he was accusing YOU of something.

You do seem to understand what the sermon was about. So why can't you see that that message, and a hate message, cannot be the same one? And so if the sermon was about overcoming anger, it cannot be a hate message.

No - I wasn't a slave owner and I wasn't around 200 years ago.
The Egyptian reference IMO was a token mention...

__________________

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 actually says in the sermon that "oppressoin is not only white, oppression comes in all colors" talking about governmental oppressoin in other countries. But as a black American that speaks to his audiences and I might add, nothing he said about the U.S. (except the HIV thing) is true. And considering Tuskegee, I don't blame him for being paranoid. The track record doesnt inspire trust when it comes to black folks and the U.S. government.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

This doesn't disprove his argument. The Roman state does enact the execution and it does give in to the whims of the crowd. You could even argue that Pontius was more likely to do so as a concession to people who were otherwised ignored by their occupiers. The point here is that the Bible gives us a glimpse into what's fucked up about imperial power. Innocents, like Jesus, can be caught in the crossfire over struggles between the occupier and the occupied. He really effectively brings that home.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

I agree about HIV-AIDS. However, FDR DID know about pearl harbor. That's actually not leftist conspiracy, it's in all his biographies. They didn't know when the Japanese were going to attack and they ddnt anticipate the ferocity, but they knew it was going to happen and didn't warn the American people. Do with that info what you will.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

The Egyptian reference IMO was a token mention...

LOL Oh c'mon now. That's your response? He spent too much time on white systemic racism rather than Egyptian oppression thousands of years ago? That's pretty rich. Outside of HIV was anything he said about the U.S. government's historic treatment of African Americans a lie? If not the issue is just how you FEEL having to think about those things rather than him being "anti American." Does being patriotic mean you have to lie about America's past? I might also add that his refrain of "governments change" suggests he doesnt believe oppression is endemic.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

"Outside of HIV..." is a pretty big thing, don't you think?

He's advancing the idea that HIV was created to keep the black man down.

Don't you think that casts a reasonable doubt on his thought process?

It certainly doesn't appear to me to be an indication of a rational individual. It appears more as a malicious message of hate to me.

Matt

__________________

Like I said, consdering the track record I understand where its coming from. And no, I don't think that one factually incorrect position within a sermon dominated by accurate things entirely disproves the entire mindset.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

I'd agree if this were a simple fact that was misstated, like a date or name.

Claiming that the government invented HIV to use as a weapon against the black man isn't a misstatement, nor a simple error, IMHO.

But then, I'm a white guy, so I supposedly have a sense that I have a "right" to supremacy, so what could I know?

Matt

__________________

The question is, considering the track record, is it outside the bounds of logic to believe that the government would manufacture a disease to hurt African Americans? The answer can be found in

Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present by Harriet Washington

What's really excellent about this book is that the scientists involved recorded everything they did, in accordance with scientific method. There's no claiming its "revision" or "leftist biased." These men damned themselves with their own words. Here are just a few examples.

* Women’s health pioneer J. Marion Sims used non-anesthetized slave women to develop gynecological treatments in the 19th century.
* In the 1950s the Army and CIA exposed African Americans in Florida to mosquitoes carrying yellow fever.
* Black Pennsylvania inmates were the subjects of painful dermatology tests conducted by a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist in the 1950s and 60s.
* A University of Mississippi researcher performed neurosurgery on African American boys in the 1960s and 70s to fix the “brain pathology” that caused their “hyperactive behavior”. Some of the boys were paralyzed by the operations.

Tragically, I can go on and on and on and On. The book is depressing and exhaustive. So no, I don't think Jeremiah Wright is so outlandish in his beliefs about HIV. That would seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

Oh, for God's sake.

You seem to be buying this whole HIV conspiracy. Are you defending at because you want to patch a hole in Wright's message, or do you really believe that the US government invented HIV to keep the black man down?

Matt

__________________

I have said numerous times in this thread that I think Wright is wrong about HIV. You even quoted me as such. However, what I have said (and what you continue to ignore) is that there's nothing "illogical" or "irrational" about such a belief if you understand the history of medical experimentation on African Americans, by the state, in this country. If we purely went on empirical evidence and deductive reasoning it would be less likely that the U.S .government didn't create HIV than more. However as we all know, deductive reasoning has flaws because there are things in this world known as exceptions. However, considering the LONG track record of medical experimentation on African Americans, arguing that the governments non-role in HIV is unique is an entirely rational position. That you are focusing on this one example of being wrong and refusing to grapple with the larger issue is sort of the point.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

I see, so Tuskegee means even after many others things done t redress wrongs and 'level" the playing field, trust cannot be inspired, well that’s exactly what’s wrong with all this and a perfect cap tot this thread imho.
It all sux, we suck, we are the oppressors not worthy of trust, evil and deserving of contempt....one must enclose themselves into a community where in counting on anyone but ourselves will not be beneficial, that’s the message of the church right? Black Nationalism along with other tidbits along the lines of separatism that I am to tired to go find again. Well so, who’s practicing segregation now?
Oh wait, now he’s going to live in a gated 98% white community, never mind.


what happened to hope, forgiveness, there is good in all men, some ar just misguided, be on guard for those, but reach out to others who believe what we believe, turn to your brother in humanity not based on race but based on faith and gods creation, and the inherent goodness in us all, that together we can move ahead, because no man, race creed, color etc. is or should be an island? Didn’t see much of that.....

__________________
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....

i knew tuskegee was going to surface up in one of CMS little posts

to try and make wright out to be a good or bad person is a waste of internet space

the man did all of this for attention and he deserves nothing but scorn , ridicule but mostly he should just be ignored

You always bow out of the discussion when you can't just generally speak about "all the things done" anymore. What things done? When? What issues did they supposedly address? And, more importantly, can we have a real assessment of if those things worked or didnt What ways did they work and what ways didn't they work. No one here is calling you evil, untrustworthy or racist scum but you are taking this SO personally. I don't get it.
OMG calm down.
Can you please get your stories straight? Is the problem that African Americans demand to much help in the form of "welfare" (whatever that is) or is the problem that African Americans attempt to mitigate poverty and discrimination by turning inwards and helping themselves. What EXACTLY are African Americans to do that won't get you to accuse them of some kind of horrid reverse racism. It's reverse racism when African Americans want access to the same federal housing loans that built the white middle class. It's reverse racism when Afican Americans want to be considered for jobs. It's also reverse racism when African Americans say "well I guess we better do this ourselves". Is the argument that people should just shut up about racism?

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.