Part One:

And Wright didn't say anything any more offensive in his criticism of American governmental behavior than has Pat Buchanan in some of his books. Fox News and the rest of the popular media only showed a short clip from a much longer sermon that needs to be seen in its entirety before people start dissing the man. Perhaps his choice of words was a bit inflammatory but people sometimes need a kick in the butt. The entire video is now available on the internet.

The really bad people are those who take statements out of context to create the appearance of something they are not. Fox News does this all the time. Hannity's quoting of a paragraph from Michelle Obama's Master's thesis to portray her as a 70s race radical is another example. The paragraph in question was in fact a statement of radical sentiment from someone else (complete with quotation marks) but Hannity attributed the sentiment to Ms. Obama because she wrote it in her thesis. That is not reporting or even editorializing. That is political propagandizing.

Part Two:

The news outlets get away with misleading "reporting" (it happens on all networks but Fox has made it an art) because the American attention span seems to have further degraded. In the 80s, it was the 30 second sound bite that ruled. Today, it is the 20 second sound bite that rules. We are not interested in getting the complete story because all we want is the sound bite and if it reinforces our prejudices, so much the better.

With the development of the Internet, it has become possible for anyone with a computer and a connection to get full details on almost any story the news presents. Unfortunately, so few people actually do it. When so much depends on accurate and complete information, it should rank as a Commandment from God that people develop and use critical thinking skills. But what I expect is the next step... the 5 second sound bite.

Then let him go back to Chicago and work there. I simply don't believe him most of the time. He speaks of uniting the country and reaching across the isle to find solutions. On the biggest bi-partisan issue that Senators have taken a stand on, the one that required the most courage, Senator Obama was silent. If he was really interested in getting things done in a bi-partisan way he could have made the "gang of 14" the "gang of 15" when it came to judicial nominations. What did he do? He stayed with his liberal roots, heaven forbid he become a "maverick" in his own party.

The founding fathers spoke out against injustice, based upon truth. The wrongs that Wright speaks out against are, in some cases, imaginary. For example, the US government did not invent AIDS to infect people of color. Please show me where the government or the people of America systematically discriminate and oppress the blacks in the US today. Obama is a good example of just how much opportunity is available to those who apply themselves.

From what I understand, Wright's church does not allow whites to attend. So much for preaching equality, let alone the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Obama should certainly be judged by his actions. To sit in this church week after week, listening to hate filled speech while allowing his young children to be indoctrinated by the same is not what I would want in the leader of my country. If Obama doesn't recognize the message of hate and racism being preached week after week, then he is certainly not sharp enough to recognize the nuances required to deal with other world leaders. (And if he does recognize what is being preached, then why stay and listen unless you agree with it?)

I'm not condoning anything Rev. Wright said, but Joe, how do you know he preached hate "week after week" without being there?

AGKI-

In your defense of Obama, please don't try to defend Rev. Wright's comments. Senator Obama didn't even defend his comments. He condemned them. He said "they weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country."

Unless of course, Obama was lying.

Wright is a racist Obama is a racist. I am judging both of them by their actions.
To compare their hate filled rants to the founding fathers is truly obscene.
The race question needs to be addressed only because of hatred and racism against whites.
Obama and his fellow racists need to repent. Until then we will not and should not trust him or the birds of a feather he flocks with.
Sorry you picked man you knew nothing about and now you are stuck with him, just like we are stuck with McCain. May God have mercy on us all.

Cameron,
Have YOU watched the entire sermon? I haven't so I won't comment either way. But apparently, AGKI has watched the whole thing and if HE wants to defend some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary comments, who are you to tell him not to?

Furthermore, if AGKI defends Wright's comments, what in the "heck" does that have to do with Obama NOT defending them. Two different people can have two different opinions about one other person's comments and yet still support the same political causes and share the same hope for a better future for our country.

Joe,
Would you care to share a reference concerning "what (you) understand" about white people not being allowed to attend Trinity United Church of Christ? It sounds like someone's make-believe to me . . .

jackhp,
How dare you makes sense. Are you saying that I can disagree with one thing someone has said and still recognize that we share more goals for society than I do with someone of a different party and ideology? That's crazy!

michaelh,
Can you please explain how condemning white RACISM makes someone a racist?

Out of curiosity, I actually READ several of Wright's sermons--unlike you people. I didn't find hatred there at all. I found something very familiar...the gospel preached, with an occasional gibe at the "whited sepulchres" who rule this country for their own gain. Kind of reminds of Someone Else from 2,000 years ago....

Joe, you say "Please show me where the government or the people of America systematically discriminate and oppress the blacks in the US today."

How about the recent US Supreme Court ruling finally overturning crack Cocaine sentences on the grounds that they were racially motivated. Congress wrote the harsher treatment for crack into a law that sets a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence for trafficking in 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of cocaine powder.

In case you missed it, crack was used more frequently by blacks in inner cities while powder was the preferred form of the whites in the penthouse apartments of the same cities.

Oh, and unlike the LDS church until 1978, Obama's church has never had a doctrine that people of a different race cannot be granted full rights within the church. Anyone can be a member of Trinity United Church of Christ with full membership and priviledges. Until 78, african americans could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church.

Does this mean that Mitt Romney's failure to distance himself from this policy should disqualify him from being President?

No Gopherus, YOU can't. Anyone but YOU. Others are certainly welcome to disagree with me, but not YOU. YOU can't support anything that I support because YOU're a closet turtle lover (gopher tortoise, yeah right. I know you looooove them turtles), and we all know that turtles love Hannity. So, in conclusion, you support Hannity by way of your turtle love, so I can't support you. Sorry.

Joe said "From what I understand, Wright's church does not allow whites to attend". That shows Joe doesn't understand much. Wright's denomination is mixed-race, with a lot of white people. White people are welcomed into his own church.

Joe, I don't know where you get your facts (although I can guess). Get out a little. Stop listening to rant radio. For God's sake, use your brain.

How about this for Obama's actions not meeting his words. He constantly tells us that we need to take care of the poor. What does he do with all of his money? Well, if you look at his tax returns, he sure isn't giving it to the poor. Also, he thinks that the people who earn more money should pay a higher percent of their income in taxes. If he truely believed what he says, he should be giving more to chairities and over pay his taxes. So, just by his actions alone, I would think that he wants the poor to suffer and he wants his millions to himself.

Somebody plese explain how someone can say you need to give more while keeping more to themselves?

jackhp

In a comment to a letter about judging Barack Obama, AGKI said before we start dissing Rev Wright we should watch the entire sermon.

I presume Obama watched entire sermons over the last 20 years, including the ones he has been commenting on lately. Sermons like the one where Wright said the US government invented AIDS in order to kill black people.

Obama not only dissed Wright's statements, he condemned them. He said they denigrate the greatness and goodness of our nation and expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country.

So agree with Wright all you want. But don't pretend that you're defending Obama in the process.

I saw an interesting news report about Obama that allows you to somewhat judge the Illinois senator on his treatment of other people. Since 2000, he has given less than 4% of his millions in income to any type of charity, including the racist church he attends. But that is typical of the left, they want the government to take your money in the form of taxes to support the poor, but they will not part with very much of their own wealth for the same purpose. BTW, private and church run charities are much more efficient in their distribution of aid to the poor than any government agency ever.

A Syracuse University professor wrote a book within the last year or two that documented the charitable giving of conservatives and liberals entitled "Who Really Cares". It found conservatives to be much more generous.

A cynical mind would also note Obama's charitable giving increased as he got closer to announcing his run for the presidency. He gave less than 2% in 2000-2004, then upped it to 6% in 2006.

Mr. Brown, on the one hand, I agree that Americans treated African-Americans worse than the British treated the American colonists.

On the other hand, Rev. Wright's "extremist rantings" are worse than Patrick Henry's "rantings". What's more, Henry had the added benefit of being right, while Wright is simply wrong. You simply can't compare Wright's paranoid conspiracy theories to Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" or "if this be treason, make the most of it!"

There is absolutely nothing "un-American" about calling a hateful nutcase on the ugliness of his character. Wright's got the First Amendment right to be as wrong as he wants. Barack Obama has the First Amendment right to be counted with him. And I have the First Amendment right to pronounce them both deeply confused or worse.

Casey's logic: Obama disagrees with me about judges so I simply don't believe him most of the time.

Nothing about his bipartisan efforts in the Illinois State Legislature. Nothing about his bipartisan efforts in the Senate. Nothing about his more measured rhetoric and his willingness to actually sit down and LISTEN to those with opposing views so that he can maybe COMPREHEND where they are coming from rather than blithely dismissing them. Nope. Obama took a principled stance, after much deliberation, concerning some VERY conservative judicial appointments and he didn't do what I wanted so I don't believe him "most of the time."

Yeah, that makes sense . . .

I'm a little creeped out when I hear people shouting at others to repent, like michaelh 8:23, even more so when he himself jumps into name-calling - "racists". We all should repent, but I am confident that if Obama was truly a racist, we would not have to prove it by using SOMEONE ELSE'S words.

Shame on you, Cameron.

Agki was just saying that we should get the whole story before jumping to conclusions. It doesn't seem to me that he was defending Wright as much as he was giving some specific examples of how we are misled by the media. It's kinda ironic that you came along and put your own spin on it.

Are you one of those "really bad people" Agki talks about in 'Part One?'

GWB -- The problem with your argument is that it was the Congressional Black Caucus that supported the original disparity in sentencing. The crack epidemic was destroying the inner cities, and community leaders demanded a "get tough" response.

It was only later that the disparity was turned into a white-oppressing-black racial issue. Ironic, considering who originally supported it. But the great advantage of being "progressive" is that you get to ignore history.

Cameron,
Funny how you completely ignore my point. YOU haven't seen or read the entire sermons, so how does that make you credible in attacking Agki's opinion?

Obama didn't denounce everything his pastor said. He specifically "dissed" the soundbites played in a continuous loop on Fox and YouTube and said they present a distorted view of our country. If someone would bother to ask him about the entire sermons within which those soundbites are contained, I'm sure Obama would probably agree with much of the message. I'm guessing MOST Christians would agree with A LOT of what Rev. Wright has to say.

Where did I say that I agree with Wright? Funny, I think I specifically said I wouldn't comment either way because I haven't seen the entire sermons.

How do you get that I am "pretending" to defend Obama? I thought I was "defending" Agki from your illogical nonsense, which you apparently are willing to continue.

You need to stop "presum(ing)" so much and start thinking critically for a change.

The Obamas reported giving $60000+ to charity in 2006.

How much did McCain give? Oh, wait, where are HIS tax returns again?

Lady H,

Shame on me? Fine. Then shame on Barack Obama, since as I've stated twice already, he condemned Wright's statements. In a speech. On race. Heard by millions of people.

jackhp,

"Where did I say that I agree with Wright? Funny, I think I specifically said I wouldn't comment either way because I haven't seen the entire sermons."

"I'm sure Obama would probably agree with much of the message. I'm guessing MOST Christians would agree with A LOT of what Rev. Wright has to say."

jackhp,

"Obama didn't denounce everything his pastor said. He specifically "dissed" the soundbites played in a continuous loop on Fox and YouTube and said they present a distorted view of our country."

Wrong.

He said, and I quote,

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy."

"the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country"

"Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems"

Cameron,
Are you really so logically challenged? You actually cite the Obama quote that proves MY point. Obama condemned Wright's statements "that have caused such controversy." What does that mean? Well, I'll tell you what, it DOESN'T mean that Obama condemned EVERYTHING his pastor said in those sermons. You are wrong in presuming so . . .

In your post from 10:01 you imply that I "agree with Wright." I asked you "where" and in your post at 11:06 you again fail miserably to back up your claim. Where did I ever say or even imply that I agree with Wright?

I have only said that I haven't seen the entire sermons so I can't say one way or the other. I have heard many other people say that the message of the sermons is valid so I have no problem saying that many Christians, and even Obama, would probably agree with much (that's not "all", FYI) of what Wright says.

Is it possible for you to understand that condemning some of Wright's words isn't the same as condemning everything he says?

GWB,
Your reference to the LDS church and the Blacks is not correct.
Yes, Blacks could not have the preisthood before 1978.

NO, they were never denied membership before 1978. In fact there were several Black members in my ward prior to 1976.

Now are you talking about going to the Temple? As far as I know, the church has always taught the blacks would some day be able to receive all the blessing of the gospel. I know there are a lot of people who quote Brigham Young, but I went and looked it up, they all missed his point that they would someday receieve the preisthood, just not yet.

someone at 10:51 asked me about McCain's tax returns. Couldn't tell you, nor could I tell you about Clinton's, Bush's, or my next door neighbor's. The point of the original letter was judging Obama (not Clinton, McCain, Bush or my neighbor) by his actions. Please stay on-topic.

His $60,000 included $27,500 to his racist church, leaving $32,500 for other causes. That $60,000 was only 6% of his income. I think it was 2001 when he gave about 1/2 of 1% to charity. There are many in this valley who do not have $60,000 to give, but I dare say contribute over 10% of their income to charity. Go thou and do likewise.

Cameron, go back and read it again! You don't seem to have actually read the comments or you certainly did not understand what I was writing about. I did NOT defend Obama or Wright. The only Obama I mentioned was Michelle Obama and it was not to defend her but to attack the misbegotten methods of Sean Hannity and others in the news media. I think you need to understand that people who make judgments about others using incomplete information and fail to seek out the facts are apt to make very big mistakes in what they think and in what they do.

I also pointed out that the statements by Wright that were so inflammatory to Fox News, CNN, NBC, CBS and the rest of the media are not so inflammatory when you put them into the context of the totality of his sermon on that day. As I said, his comments about the results of the directions this nation has taken since WW2 were no more inflammatory than comments made by Pat Buchanan and other authors and speakers critical of American foreign and domestic policy be they on the left or on the right.

jackhp,

You know, for someone who insists they haven't seen the sermons and therefore won't comment on them, you sure do a lot of commenting.

Agki argued that we should see the entire sermons before condemning Rev Wright. Well, Obama condemned Rev Wright. Presumably after viewing them after the fact, since he says he wasn't there when they were given. He said the rhetoric used in those sermons is divisive and distorts the truth about our country.

I agree with Barack Obama.

And I join him in condemning the rhetoric used by Reverend Wright.

The good reverend Wright is a racist, pure and simple. To think otherwise is nonsense.

Joe, you seem to be one of the types of Americans I was writing about. You don't make the effort to find the facts. The Trinity Church is predominantly black and they say they are unashamedly so but they have had white ministers speak there. The pride they have in being black seems to be no more racist than the pride someone might feel about being a BYU Cougar.

I've read a few of Wright's sermons and they are not hate-filled racist spewings like those that have come from some of the Christian ministers of some of the white churches. Jerry Falwell, for example, was nothing but a racist and his writings from the time he was organizing his megachurch in the 1950s amply demonstrate his hatred of blacks (and others). Those kind of spewings continue to come from the mouths of some around here (North Carolina) even today and they still come from the "Religious Right" with regard to gays and lesbians of any race.

To Confused,
Wow, that's reassuring. Hey, all you black people, stop complaining about racism. You're just missing the point; you'll get to enjoy all the "blessings" of personhood . . . eventually. Maybe you should try being more "white" first, then we can talk.

"Confused" -- Not only "not yet," but not until all white people were redeemed. Brigham blew that one.

And yes -- given a choice between two Mormon candidates, if one had never objected to the priesthood policy and/or sat reverently through sermons denouncing blacks' lack of courage in the premortal existence, and the other had at least in some way manifested some discomfort with the policy and those doctrines, all things being equal, I'd rather vote for the latter.

Agki,

"the statements by Wright that were so inflammatory to Fox News, CNN, NBC, CBS and the rest of the media are not so inflammatory when you put them into the context of the totality of his sermon"

Which presumably Obama did. Yet he condemned the statements anyway.

What does, "Far more American than average", mean?

The opinion writer sayed, "His work on the streets of Chicago makes him far more American than average". What does that mean?

What makes Obama or anyone "American", much less "More American than average"?

This guy sounds like he should be writting about Hannity and bubbling, "Your a great American, No your a great American...".

One of the commenters said Rev. Wright hadn't said anything more harsh that Pat Buchanan has said. Well, it's true! Utah "consevatives" are amazingly insular and unified behind the Bush brand of "conservatism." They ought to break out and read some Buchanan, some Libertarians, and indeed some Rev. Wright to get some perspective.

And Utah "liberals" should read some Libertarians and Pat Buchanan too, so they could be a little less narrowly drawn.

I'm a Democrat but I think Pat Buchanan is great, and I think Libertarianism has a lot to offer.

Confused, you say "Your reference to the LDS church and the Blacks is not correct. NO, they were never denied membership before 1978. In fact there were several Black members in my ward prior to 1976."

To repeat my words: "Oh, and unlike the LDS church until 1978, Obama's church has never had a doctrine that people of a different race cannot be granted full rights within the church'" and "Until 78, african americans could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church."

Where is it I say that blacks were (to use your words) "denied membership before 1978."

Please tell me again exactly how I am "not correct"?

And while you are at it, tell me how this is not racist while Obama's pastor is?

Cameron,
I'm not commenting on the sermons. I'm commenting on your lack of ability to reason appropriately concerning Obama's comments about SOME of the comments made in those sermons.

Once again, you have made a false statement about Obama. He most certainly did not condemn Rev. Wright. He condemned the most incendiary of Wright's comments, those which give a distorted view of America.

Furthermore, you are again presuming that Obama had seen the entire sermons before condemning Wright's divisive rhetoric. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You don't know. Either way, does it matter? Obama condemned the divisive rhetoric that was being plastered all over Fox News.

He also asked that we as a nation rise above such petty political games and actually discuss rationally the reasons why such rhetoric takes hold and is embraced by minority communities. He also gave credence to much of the anger and resentment that white people hold toward minorities because of the failings of some of the social policies put in place to help minorities.

I don't see any rationality coming from you Cameron. You've continually misconstrued Obama, ostensibly to make political hay. Are you willing to discuss the issue without presuming anything?

You brought up the news stories about Obama's charitable giving, so, apparently tax returns are "on topic." Why haven't McCain and Clinton released their returns? Apparently, they don't want to be scrutinized by the nit-pickers such as yourself. Can't say I blame them . . .

GWB,
Seems we have a rash of logic challenged posters on this thread, eh?

jackhp,

"you are again presuming that Obama had seen the entire sermons before condemning Wright's divisive rhetoric. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You don't know. Either way, does it matter?"

Uh, according to Agki it does. Which is what started this entire conversation.

I have read the sermon.

In every one of my comments I have made it clear that I echoed Obama's view that Rev. Wright's comments deserve condemnation. The words he used in those sermons were divisive. The assertions he made about the US were factually inaccurate.

GWB - Do you see any whites in leadership positions at the Trinity Church? Sure whites can attend (I see very few in the videos). Blacks could attend the LDS church as well (prior to 1978) without being in leadership positions.

Now, fast forward the LDS church to 2008. There are blacks throughout the leadership of the church. I ask again - Are there any whites in leadership positions in the Trinity Church? Don't waste your time looking - there aren't any. Only the occasional attendees.

Would brother Brigham have voted for Obama?

If not, why not?

Obama's pastor, the "Reverend" Wright, used a wrong choice of words to illustrate his personal opinions. He was wrong in his choice of words but his sermon's "gist" may not have been wrong.

God does "damn" certain attitudes, wrong thinking and wrong behavior---it doesn't matter what race, religion or sect a person chooses to follow after.

Obama's pastor could have elaborated on wrong attitudes and behavior--even bad political philosophies or policies---without saying "God damn America" for "this or that." If Wright had said, "God damns," for instance, bad behavior, bad political policies or bad behavior, he could have avoided embarrassing himself and Obama.

I don't support Obama for president, but I think if one examines the "gist" of what Wright was saying, it could easily be extrapolated that his intent was not what the media is pushing that Wright and Obama are racists.

Learn to read between the lines folks---learn about the black culture and what they have been subjected to in U.S. history. Maybe then, you might not be so quick to judge.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." He also said, "Condemn not lest ye be condemned."

Jesus was against wrong motives in behavior.

You're the judge now!

MEB,
Thanks for joining the logically challenged crowd on this thread. Comparing Trinity United to the entire LDS Church is entirely fallacious. TU is a member of the United Church of Christ. It would be more apt to compare TU to an individual ward or stake within the LDS Church.

Now, with that distinction being made, does your post have any merit? I'd say not.

Yes, The LDS church practiced racism prior to 1978 under orders from God the father.

What God the father's reason for this are his. You will have to ask him.

All the apostles and prophets have said there is a reason people are white or black or asian or whatever.

Or else God the Father would not have made different races. So wu musr assume ther are very good reasons for for people being different races.

But we also know that God the father lifted this curse of racism from his church in 1978.

What other churches have practiced in the past or practice now does not matter, they are not his church.

Amen!