Reverend Wright May Not Be So Wrong

It drives me crazy whenever I hear people skewered publicly based on a brief, possibly out-of-context quote.  Or a bunch of them.  So all these brief clips of Jeremiah Wright, followed by condemning him as racist, paranoid, anti-America, and so forth, have really been driving me crazy.  And I wanted to find the context in which he made these now infamous remarks, to hear the whole speeches, before I made any judgement on the man. 

Here's what I found so far.

I should say here that the only clip of him speaking that I caught any part of on TV was a brief clip a couple weeks ago, when he was being questioned about the quote that the US government created AIDS to kill black people.  He asked "did you hear the whole speech?" and the reporter had to admit not.  He explained that he was describing how there are many people who believe that the government created AIDS to kill black, and he continued that we cannot assume that there is no truth to this, given other abominations the government has committed, and he cited the Tuskegee "experiment" in which black men with syphilis were studied by government researchers while being kept from the antibiotic treatment that was widely available and known to cure the otherwise fatal disease, so the researchers could learn more about how untreated syphilis symptoms progressed.  (The subjects all died extremely slow and painful deaths.)  I can understand how events like this can lead people to be reluctant to assume that our government means no harm to them.  I wish I could tell you exactly where and when I saw this, but my friend, who was holding the remote, flipped to another station, and we could not find it again.  I have tried, without success so far, to find a video or transcript of that specific sermon.

But I found this clip on youtube of the infamous 9/11 sermon.  It's about 10 minutes long, and not the entire sermon, but it really gives a good sense of what he said and how he said it.  The brief clip that we all heard was "America's chickens have come home to roost!" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Here's the infamous "God Damn America" sermon (about 7 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbEzHdV24AU&feature=related

I watched a few others too, and I have to say if this is what his sermons were typically like, I can understand why he has such a large following.

Not only are his comments in the brief clips we hear replayed endlessly taken quite out of context, but he is a very intelligent and though-provoking man.

I would also contrast his sermons with the preachings of some of our well-known fundamentalist ministers.  Remember when, right after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson concluded that the attacks were caused by America's "tolerant" attitude toward homosexuals and feminists (I think there was another group they blamed, but I forget who)?  Why weren't we hearing this kind of stuff about any politician who ever embraced them as mentors?

What is the point of going to church (or temple or mosque or whatever) if you are not challenged to think about your beliefs and values, reflect on social injustice, and consider how you can be a better person?  Is attending a service just a time card people punch to score enough brownie points to get into Heaven (or their own faith's afterlife expedition)? 

Comments

[Jerry Scarborough]

Aubrey,

Welcome back. We've missed you.

I really haven't seen any of Rev. Wright's sermons. So, I won't credit, or discredit him for them. I did see quite a bit of the Press Club appearance. And, I did not think he did well there. He seemed to really be in love with being on stage (the Jesse Jackson effect).

I know he was a Marine, and that he served on the Presidential medical detail during he Johnson years. And, that he has more than one Presidential commendation for his service. And, I really liked his remark about Dick Cheney.

Beyond that, I think he has had an opportunity to help his friend/candidate through this controversy. And, he has chosen to make things worse instead. I don't know why. And, I guess I really don't care. My vote is going Republican anyway. But, I do think it's a shame that he didn't try to help his candidate.

[MSUGeek]

Aubrey - Two wrongs, three wrongs, four wrongs don't make a right. Just because other ministers say foolish things, does not make what Jeremiah Wright said OK. You think that his remarks were taken out of context, and that is your opinion. I have heard or read all of the sermons that the remarks came from and do not agree that they were taken out of context. Wright is a very bigoted man. He preaches black separatist doctrine and war on the middle class (except himself, apparently).

And he keeps on going. In one of his latest speeches, to the NAACP dinner in Detroit, he stated that black children are physiologically different than white children in the way that they learn (right vs left brain rubbish). Not only is this total balderdash, but he got an ovation from the crowd, the same NAACP that pushed for integrated schools to combat the same thinking over half a century ago from white racists. If a white person made those remarks, they would be tarred and feathered in the press. Then Wright goes to the press club dinner and restates most of his racist beliefs from his previous contentious sermons. I guess it is his right to blather, but he is only making a fool of himself. Obama did the right thing to finally distance himself totally from the pariah.

[John J]

Rev. Wright's church used to sell whole CDs of his fine sermons. TV and radio does not have unlimited time, so they went for the more juicier pronouncements which does not mean that the rest was angel pure. His hobbyhorse seems to always be the evil USA and the evil white man. Along with that we have the PC doctrine that a minority is incapable of evil and only the whites are capable of it.

Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck - even if it is not white.

[parrot]

nice job Aubrey, but if you think you can change the minds of people who think a few statements by a preacher is equal to us waging war on,and murdering innocent people I'll say this, it won't happen. Notice how they all avoid the actual aids virus thing? Not one of them dares to read Emerging Viruses, by Leonard g. Horowitz...another Harvard educated nitwit, and try to find a flaw in the facts he presents. He surely could be wrong...so, if he is, present your arguments...and proof please

[MSUGeek]

And here is Parrot, once again glomming onto another conspiracy theory. I don't know how you sleep at night worrying about that black helicopter, flown by W, spraying the AIDS virus around the hood. Am I mocking you? You bet your a** I am.

[Aubrey Marron]

Jerry, thanks for your welcoming thoughts. My computer crashed and died, and then I got sick, but I have missed you all too. Even those of you who disagree with me. ;-) I do agree that his recent interviews have not been helpful either to him or to Obama.

Geek, I respect and appreciate your comments even when we vehemently disagree, so I will check out the speeches you refer to.

John J, Your comment about the "PC idea that only the majority can do evil" is a commonly held belief that is worthy of its own column or more, so I will try to say something soon on that topic.

Parrot, thanks for the kind words. I have read a little about Leonard Horowitz, but not enough that I feel confident to comment on him, but I bet your comment will get some lively responses!

[Landser]

Here is a chilling thought for you Americans. If Obama loses the election then your 24/7 media and the crowd of race baiters (Jackson, Sharpton, Wright) will stir thing up until you have massive riots and uprisings. Imagine the '67 Detroit and '92 East LA riots but on a nation wide scale.

Germany is looking for skilled Americans workers to replace temporary workers from the Middle East and Turkey. It's nice to have a place to go if things turn bad.

[John J]

If we wish conspiracies, the whole Obama candidacy might be just a ruse for creating a separate country for disaffected blacks if Obama loses the Democratic candidacy or even the election. Onward and upward with conspiracies! Excelsior!

[Michael Motta]

Welcome back Aubrey - missed ya ;)

What I find humorous is that the the least outlandish points a pastor makes are considered the most outlandish.

I would take to task much more strongly the hypothesis that Jesus is the son of God, that God exists, and a whole slew of other presuppositions that most any Christian pastor already has on his/her plate before I would declare his/her thoughts on the subject of racial differences in cognitive styles and strengths to be "bawlderdash" as MSUGeek says. There are at least studies suggesting that blacks and Hispanics may perform better in applications requiring divergent thinking (often associated with right brain function) as opposed to applications involving convergent thinking (often associated with left brain function).

I'm not going to search all of the studies right now, and I don't even know if what Reverend Wright says in this regard is true, half-true, or false. But the point is that on issues such as this, there is usually disagreement within the academic community among mutually respected parties. In other words, this idea may be wrong, but it's not nearly as suspect as the presuppositions that pastors in general make all the time. Similar could be said of political views that Wright may or may not hold - they are his reasoned opinions rather than faith-based pie-in-the-sky speculation.

The problem is thus revealed to be not so much an issue of intellectual rigor as an issue of minority (in the broad sense) opinion versus majority opinion. Since a majority of people in this country are Christians, the enormous liberties this religion takes with truth are not subject to scrutiny, but the relative minutiae of highly particular political and scientific positions are put under a microscope.

[Michael Motta]

Oops, I misspelled (and thus misquoted) "balderdash".

[parrot]

msugeek...you're much better at mocking than at intelligent responses. Everything you don't agree with is a conspiracy, but you do nothing to debunk those so called conspiracies. There is surely a place for you on fox news.

[Populista]

Michael Motta is my personal hero.

[Timo Kokko]

Parrot, please.
Taking the writings of a dentist, and arguably a behavioral scientist, as the gospel on AIDS is absurd. He takes a variety of incidents and links them together in a time-line and constructs a theory of linkage. He has no training or specialized knowledge in the science of virology but makes a series of claims that are self-evidently bogus. Rubbish.

While I have no "proof", the discovery of HIV and the linkage between the virus and AIDS was a heated debate among two men who hated each other, and had a lot to gain or lose depending on the results. Neither Gallo nor Montagnier were closely connected prior to their work on what became the discovery of HIV nor did they collaborate on "hiding" the evidence that it came from a US or World Health Organization plot to wipe out the third world's population. This is about as loopy of a conspiracy theory as is possible to conceive.

[MSUGeek]

Parrot - I will take my education, intelligence, and research skills and match them against you any day. Every single posting you put out has to do with some conspiracy of the government against us. Sorry, but I don't think that way or live my life looking over my shoulder. I can debunk your crackpot rantings with minimal research, but it is a waste of my time. I will refer back to Timo, who did take some time to do so.

BTW - I love Fox news. It is the only place I can get any modicum of fairness on any newsworthy subject. Brit Hume (former liberal) is the best in the business. My opinion - Nothing more, nothing less.

[EmersonsZen]

Nice to have you back, Aubrey.

We've all heard the Rev's rants multiple times over (and over), so I'd like to take the "guilt by association" tack.

Before the Wright hullabaloo, Obama openly cited the Rev as a mentor, a spiritual advisor, close friend, etc. "Audacity of Hope," Obama's latest book, is actually the title of a Rev hate speech.

Obama's website used to have a pic of the Rev and a bio of him.

Add in a sprinkle of *friendship* with the Weatherman guy, and you begin to see the framework of questionable judgement when it comes to picking your friends. They fly together, you know?

Obama needs the independent vote, and he's now got a tough row to hoe. Seen the polls lately? Whew...

[EmersonsZen]

Nice to have you back, Aubrey.

We've all heard the Rev's rants multiple times over (and over), so I'd like to take the "guilt by association" tack.

Before the Wright hullabaloo, Obama openly cited the Rev as a mentor, a spiritual advisor, close friend, etc. "Audacity of Hope," Obama's latest book, is actually the title of a Rev hate speech.

Obama's website used to have a pic of the Rev and a bio of him.

Add in a sprinkle of *friendship* with the Weatherman guy, and you begin to see the framework of questionable judgement when it comes to picking your friends. They fly together, you know?

Obama needs the independent vote, and he's now got a tough row to hoe. Seen the polls lately? Whew...

[EmersonsZen]

The 'ol bow echo again...

Nice.

[Timo Kokko]

Parrot,
I did a bit more browsing and found the following; I trust you will take it as proof.

"With documentation from KGB archives, British historian Christopher Andrew and former KGB agent Vasili Mitrokhin revealed nearly a decade ago that the AIDS-virus story originated in the 1980s as part of Soviet anti-American active measures or disinformation. The story swept through the Third World and was also reported in some Western media. After the story was discredited, in 1987 the Kremlin informed US officials in Moscow "that the story was officially disowned" and "Soviet media coverage of it came to an abrupt halt" although "it continued to circulate for several years in the Third World and the more gullible sections of the Western media." Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB pp.244-45, 428 & 484 (1999)"

[Michael Motta]

Populista,

Thanks for having bell curve outlier taste in heroes :)

Will you be the person who finally makes me a cape? My mom said I was strange enough already without a cape, and an ex-lover never got around to it after saying she would.

Of course I had in mind a traditional modest cape, perhaps woolen to suit harsh Michigan climate, as opposed to a gaudy comic book cape. ;)

[parrot]

timo...if you had read the book I suggested...you could have found that part in it. I'm ashamed I took the word and years of study by a harvard trained doctor, over the sage writings of a kgb agent, I should have been more fair and balanced

[MSUGeek]

Not bird, nor plane, nor even frog. Just little old me..Michael Motta(?)

Sorry..Can't be - doesn't rhyme.

Jerry: Why is Mr. Costanza talking to a man wearing a cape?
Elaine: Why a cape? Who wears a cape?

[Michael Motta]

MSUGeek, hehehe good call. I was thinking of that episode too when I was doing the cape bit. For some reason I was thinking it was Uncle Leo rather than Mr. Costanza who had been meeting with the mysterious man in the cape! Maybe because I love Uncle Leo.

[Timo Kokko]

Parrot,
Good shot on the fair and balanced comment, but I still think your lad Horowitz is a flake.

At the risk of nit-picking, he got his doctorate in dental surgery from Tufts, not Harvard; his Harvard experience resulted in a masters in behavioral science. Actually, that is kind of a strange career path, but seems to make sense for a guy that makes no sense otherwise. While clearly he is an educated man, there is nothing in either of these degrees or his life experience that I can find that qualifies him in any way as an expert virologist. While I have no time for most things communist, the one good thing you can say about them is that they were prolific writers and chroniclers of their activities. Rather than take the word of someone who in my opinion is totally unqualified to speak on the subject, it makes sense to take a plausible, although perhaps not true, explanation from a group that had a lot to gain from harming the US. While it may not be true, it is at least a reasonable explanation for the creation of another absurd urban myth. Horowitz in no way qualifies as an expert on the topic and should be ashamed of himself for spreading such bunk.

[Aubrey Marron]

So many comments, so little time...

Michael, I'll make you a Wonder Dog cape if you'll let us post a photo of you wearing it here! Should I put MM on it, or do you have a super hero alias I should use?

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories generally, but I think those who propose them serve an important public purpose. It's never a bad thing to take a second look at events, considering different possibilities to explain events than the initial, sometimes hasty, explanation. We may, and often do, conclude that the initial public explanation was true, but sometimes that is not the case. It never hurts for authors like Horowitz to provoke us to think outside our comfort zone, even if we end up disagreeing with his assertions. I always think it's a good thing to reconsider our initial assumptions about things, even if we reach the same conclusion after more consideration.

[Michael Motta]

Aubrey,

That's a very nice gesture, thanks.

With "ACLU" tattooed across my chest as my proud superhero mark, I'll go au naturel but for Wonder Dog cape that you've lovingly Betsy Rossed for me. Then we post the photo, get some popcorn, and watch "the internets" buzzing in areas where groups like the AFA and the 700 Club hang out.

I'll wait for the closet nymphos in those groups to secretly e-mail me because they're "backsliding". I'm sure there will be closet homosexuals too but I'll give them referrals or something. The basics are all here in my critically acclaimed 8-step program "How to Unleash the She-Devil in Fundie Women": http://www.ehow.com/how_2182758_unleash-shedevil-fundie-women.html

See what happens when you egg me on? :)