Posted on 05/11/2008 11:33:43 PM PDT by kathsua
The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.
Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.
When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?
The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."
The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."
Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?
I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.
Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?
Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?
It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.
I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.
The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.
This blogger is absurd. Yes, Wright has the right to say this garbage, but that doesn’t make his claims legitimate and there’s nothing wrong with telling him to shut up. Obviously he’s still free to ignore this and continue making an even bigger idiot of himself.
Journalists are beginning to analyze the Reverend’s church magazine and church bulletins now. Apparently the hatred and anti-americanism is far worse than the handful of sound bites we’ve been shocked by. This goes deep, and it’s not over yet.
Nothing that Rev. Wright has published or said is out of alignment with the attitudes and programs of the Dhimmicrat elites.
Whoever wrote this screed is hopelessly out of touch.
Why are people calling Wright a “religious leader?” Wright has created his own religion - he borrows a lot from Christianity, but has added his own interpretations of the Bible, and included downright strange beliefs about biology, race and history in his Dogma. He is not too far from having created his own cult. Such a thing happens a lot in this world - but when a man who wants to be my President turns out to have been a member of this “religion” for 20 years - it is worth looking into deeply.
Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?
The author begins the first paragraph by feigning sympathy for the shock at this claim of Wright's, reverses the tone with the next ten words, and by the end of the next paragraph has given a full justification of it.
Man, lemme outta here, know what I mean?
It is a tactic used long ago as spoken by Vladimir Lenin: “A lie told often enough becomes truth.” In this case, when caught in a lie, cry racism, and keep saying the same old lie.
“Maybe Rev. Wright is right about racism because the liberals are racists who still think blacks are their slaves and are supposed to do whatever the liberal tell them to do.”
If anyone cares to research this further, google Wayne Perryman, a very eloquent black minister who’s done a book on, and speaks about, how republicans have, throughout history, done so much more for blacks than the democrats ever did. And he talks about how this has been forgotten and twisted around to the misguided, present-day view.
Rev Wright has a right to say whatever he wants and the people who follow his teachings and belong to his church have a right to do so as well. That is not the point as all this relates to Obama.
If we see Wrights teachings as idiotic, anti-American, Socialist, Radical Black Panther ideas, then while he has the right to espouse this, we also have a right to expect a future president of our country to have better sense than to hold these ideas himself. The fact that Obama held membership in this church, listened for years and did not speak against Wright’s teachings, tells us that there is a very good chance that Obama holds these same ideas as truth himself. It’s like one of those huge “clues” to ones character that you just can’t miss as it slaps you in the face and is so obvious.
We cannot always judge a candidate by what he says in his campaign speeches, for they will all say what they think the crowd wants to hear and it may not be the truth. We have to look into their character, their values, their past actions, their morals, in order to understand what they are really like and hopefully have a better feel for how they will act as a president.
We are seeing truths about Obama that his speeches will never tell us. He does tell us he is for “CHANGE” but he never says what type of change. Understanding the values and tenets that he holds true will be huge clues as what “CHANGE” he has in mind.... and I, as do many people, do not like what we are seeing. If his “CHANGE” heads in the direction of the ideas taught by his pastor, his mentor, his spiritual adviser...... America will be headed for a dark future, possibly total collapse.
While I do firmly believe that America is ready to accept a Black President (as most of us have put racial divides aside), I am afraid that Black voters are so wrapped up in the excitement of having a Black President that all they can see is Obama’s color, and will ignore his character and ideas. When we as Obama’s opponents challenge his character and ideas, most Blacks will not listen to our arguments because they just think we are being “racists”. But if we point to Rev Wright and say listen to him, do you approve of what he says? Well, if not then you had best think twice about Obama because he believes in the same thing as Wright. It will hard for them to argue that this statement is “racist”.
Any figurative wounds to Wright have been self-inflicted.
The author nails it here. Excellent!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.