The Rev.Wright must not care about what happens to Obama's candidacy, or he is unhappy that Obama didn't stick up for all his comments. He could have stayed out of the limelight, but he has the itch for publicity, so there you go. The whole problem is not what Obama or Wright believe, but what the concept of black liberation theology entails. Dig into the heart of it and see what you find. Large cities find themselves coping with rabble-rousers that exploit racial conflicts for personal gain. If Obama is a "different" kind of politician, why not denounce such nonsense? At this point, Obama is running out of gas, and he is unlikely to produce a speech that will do much more than turn off more of his supporters. At least Wright can pray for him.
Excerpts from Rev. Jeremiah Wright Interview with Bill Moyers
I've been sent by Bill Moyers' people excerpts from his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which will air tomorrow night on PBS. This is the first major Wright interview since the Obama "controversy" broke last month.
REVEREND WRIGHT:
The persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the
communication perfectly.
When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and
put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public,
that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are
communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some
sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times
called me, a "wackadoodle."
It's to paint me as something: "Something's wrong with me. There's
nothing wrong with this country...for its policies. We're perfect. Our
hands are free. Our hands have no blood on them." That's not a failure
to communicate. The message that is being communicated by the sound
bites is exactly what those pushing those sound bites want to
communicate.
BILL MOYERS:
What do you think they wanted to communicate?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am
un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at
Trinity United Church of Christ. And by the way, guess who goes to his
church, hint, hint, hint? That's what they wanted to communicate.
They know nothing about the church. They know nothing about our prison
ministry. They know nothing about our food ministry. They know nothing
about our senior citizens home. They know nothing about all we try to
do as a church and have tried to do, and still continue to do as a
church that believes what Martin Marty said, that the two worlds have to
be together. And that the gospel of Jesus Christ has to speak to those
worlds, not only in terms of the preached message on a Sunday morning
but in terms of the lived-out ministry throughout the week.
BILL MOYERS:
What did you think when you began to see those very brief sound bites
circulating as they did?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue. I
felt for those who were doing that, were doing it for some very devious
reasons.
Excerpt 2
BILL MOYERS:
Did you ever imagine that you would come to personify the black anger
that so many whites fear?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
No. I did not. I've been preaching since I was ordained 41 years ago.
I pointed out to some of the persons in Chicago who are in all of this,
new to them that the stance I took in standing against apartheid along
with our denomination back in the '70s, and putting a "Free South
Africa" sign in front of the church put me at odds with the government.
Our denomination's defense of the Wilmington Ten and Ben Chavis put me
at odds with the establishment. So, being at odds with policies is
nothing new to me.
The blowup and the blowing up of sermons preached 15, seven, six years
ago and now becoming a media event, not the full sermon, but the
snippets from the sermon and sound bite having made me the target of
hatred, yes, that is something very new and something very, very
unsettling.
Excerpt 3
BILL MOYERS:
Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago. Wanted to know about
the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion.
He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led
him to the faith.
You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You
were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet,
he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about
you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard
Barack Obama say those things?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to
two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a
politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two
different worlds.
I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in
Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as
a politician.
Excerpt 4
BILL MOYERS:
In the 20 years that you've been his pastor, have you ever heard him
repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?
REVEREND WRIGHT:
No. No. No. Absolutely not.
I don't talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he
goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I
continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things
of God.
Greg Mitchell's new book So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, has been hailed by Glenn Greenwald, Bill Moyers, Arianna H and others, and features a preface by Bruce Springsteen. He is editor of Editor & Publisher.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
RABBLE ROUSERS?
Your fly is open, Puller58.
What ignorant comments you espouse. The man is a pastor, and has every right to defend himself and his ministry. If he was 'itching for publicity', as you claim, one would think that he would be on something other than PBS, and much sooner than now. Your comment about 'rabble-rousers that exploit racial conflicts for personal gain' seems to perfectly describe the tabloid journalists and their puppet masters, who chose to air these snippet clips without context.
I listened to the whole interview, then listened to the whole sermon on you tube & I agree 100% with what Rev Wright was saying. As a Sergeant who served 6 years in the Marines like Rev Wright who by the way I also found out saved Linden Johnsons life by performing sergery on him a little detail that the oh so patriotic coperate controled media forgot to mention. I urge you to you tube that interview & listen to both controversal sermons in there entierty & you may change you opinions like I just did. Finally I am awaking to the lies I have been told my whole life. Rev. Wright is now my spirtual advisor. I need a pastor like that.
The Rev. statement about coming home to roost is a quote from MSNBC
http://www.futurepower.org/cia_trained_b...
It has always been rumoured that in 1977 the US Gov was trying to resolve a cure for hemopheliacs. They were testing volunteers in San Fransico, Ca. Most of the poor who came in as test volunteers were poor homosexuals in the area, then soon after you had your first major aid outbreak. The Rev. is not the first to say that to the public. And had this been proven to be true, every aid victum could create a class action lawsuite against the US Gov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aids_conspi...
Where is the HuffPo front page headline after last night's airing of this Moyers/Wright interview? It should be front and center, as the interview was superb and is sparking a great deal of reaction on other blogs. The clips were by themselves, not a good indicator of the true substance of this interview. Many people are talking about how they came away with a completely different view of Wright after this skillful, in-depth interview by a true master journalist, Bill Moyers.
I thought it was an excellent interview. Reverend Wright is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. I squirmed during the "chickens coming home to roost" speech excerpt, not because he what he said was wrong, but because he was so fiery saying it. Many Americans are used to getting their messages candy-coated, and Reverend Wright speaks many ugly truths, which will upset many people. Americans can stick their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge any part of our dark history, but the spiritual awakening our country desperately needs will not happen without it.
I just watched the Moyers interview with Rev. Wright. The other day I had watched Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams and their guests pick over the excerpt where Wright said, "I don't talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. ."
Both hosts and all the pundits criticized Wright for characterizing Obama as being a typical politician who disingenuously says things that he "must" say for expediency.
I think this was cynical and unfair. I think it is probable that Wright's intent in using the phrase "has to say" was in terms of the possessive as in "he has something to say".
In fact, later on in the interview, Wright talks about himself saying what he has to say as a pastor. This affirms my interpretation, I think, since it is unlikely he would be characterizing himself as having to be disingenuous as an inherent part of his profession.
And I have heard Matthews quote from the Bible, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." So he should know better. Barack is running for president of all of us, US, we the people -- not for someone's pastor of a church you can join or leave. And he's trying to raise the level of the conversation, not the level of hype or gotcha. He refuses to condemn people, he looks for reasonable common ground where we all can work together to find our way, and in my book that makes him amazingly gracefully atypical.
I do not think criticism of Rev. Wright's depiction of Obama's stance is justified in the least. It was a definition of roles which do not seem to be clearly understood by much of the electorate. Wright speaks as a pastor for that is what he is. Obama speaks as a politician because that is what he is. We as citizens want to elect the best equipped politician to lead us out of the disastrous years of the Bush administration. The qualifications that should be of merit are those of an intelligent and capable politician, not a pastor. There are so many people that will not use their vote to elect the most promising candidate to restore our economy, end the futile Iraq misadventure, create a healthy job environment, enhance education, improve health care, bring back prosperity, etc. Theirs is the very narrow agenda the main concerns of which are God, guns, gays and abortion. A political agenda defined this way will do little to promote the welfare of our country. We should be intensely aware that we are voting for a capable politician dedicated to govern the country to the benefit of it's citizens. We are not voting for a pastor.
You are saying we should vote for a man who brought his impressionable young children to listen to a hate filled racist week after week. Do I have it right?
I think the point is that you should hear the entire sermon and then voice an opinion. Ignorance is resoved with a few simple keystrokes.
reelcobra, wild1a isn't saying "we should vote for a man who brought his impressionable young children to listen to a hate filled racist week after week. Do I have it right?" You have it wrong, YOU'RE the one saying that. Go over to PBS and watch the whole interview, read the whole interview. Wright is not a hate filled racist, he's a pastor who cares about his flock and cares about the world, what we do to the least among us, and his ministry has been about connecting the church to real life. I'm glad that somebody is teaching children that violence begets violence and terrorism begets terrorism, and doesn't turn a blind eye to the fact that the US has a history of terrorism ourselves. I saw a sign once on a lady at a peace rally that said "I'm not raising my child to kill your child." I think that's true of the children being raised in Trinity. I wish I had been raised in that church.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
Not sure what happened to my comment but I'll repost.
Better he take his impressionable young children to a church where a pastor preachers against revenge and teaches VIOLENCE begets VIOLENCE than to
A Catholic Church and have his young kids prey to sexually abusing priests... better he NOT take his kids to swoon over a POPE who aided and abetted the coverup of the sexual abuse and who promoted a CRIMINAL like Cardinal Law...
Sometimes I don't understand this country - all up in arms over a fiery black preacher but cheering a president and masses of Pope who ALLOWED priests to hurt innocent kids in their care.
When you START to question all those who take their kids to see the POPE or take them to CHURCH that hails this POPE, then I'll listen.
There's a reason the Pope didn't DARE visit Boston, the protests would have been UGLY.
Actually I think should vote for the man who brought his impressionable young children to a church that practiced what it preached versus utter hypocrisy of many churches. He brought his 2 daughers to hear a pastor who preached AGAINST revenge, who correctly quoted scripture, VIOLENCE begets VIOLENCE.
Wright has preached for 30 years the need not to just sing kumbaya in church then go out and ignore the Bible teachings like Bush/Cheney and "some" of the hypocrital right wing preachers do with their hatred against gays, women and any race but white.
And hey if nothing else Obama didn't take EXPOSE his two young daughters to predatory PRIESTS in a Catholic Church, who when caught were sent to another parish to continue to abuse kids.
As a Bostonian I was BEYOND disgusted by Bush, media and millions of Catholics in this country taking their children to SWOON over the Pope who was part of the biggest COVERUP of SEXUAL ABUSE. He's a disgusting human being for promoting the CRIMINAL Cardinal LAW was. They whisked him off to cushy Rome instead of standing trial for aiding and abetting abuse.
I can't understand this country sometimes, CHILDREN were abused for decades - and what are they up in arms over, a few loud sermons from a fiery black preacher who NEVER once laid a hand to hurt any child or adult.
Wright's interview with PBS gives Obama a perfect opportunity to do what he should have done last month and cut the pastor loose. Wright is supposed to speak to a couple of groups over the next few days (including the National Press Club). So it's clear that he isn't going away.
Obama needs to issue a clear, concise statement that goes well beyond saying he finds some of Wright's words "objectionable."
He should say something along the lines of, "In light of the fact that Pastor Wright is continuing to make statements that I object to, I have decided to end my association with him."
He could even show major kohonies by saying that he and Michelle have decided to end their membership in Wright's church.
I know both statements/disavowals would likely be very hard for him from an emotional standpoint. But if he doesn't at least dump the good reverend, he'll be paying for it the rest of the way...
Sheesh. Your name 'NaiveOkie' I suppose says it all. Your comments show the ignorance of the part of America that saddens me, and I am ashamed of.
did you see the full sermon? if you did you will never thing obama should cut ties with a great pastor. I grew up in a baptist church and thats how we get down the sermons can get very controversial. when I was younger the sermons was more about sex, drugs, etc. however some pastors are more in to politics. I would not be surprised thats one of the reasons why obama picked his church.
So Rev.Wright shoulg get thrown under the bus for defending himself after the character assination that he received?
He is a prominent sought out minister who should just go hide under a rock!!
He has a 35-40 year career; most of Obama's life but no he should sit down and shut up. He should just end his career.
You people are judging a man you dont know.
If that is what Obama will do for political expediency then I will not support him any longer. Who knows what else he would do if he did that.
Right on!
If the Reverend wants to keep repeating over and over he believes insanely that our government created AIDs to kill blacks, and wants to keep damning us, why should we muzzle him?
Shouldn't we be reminded on a daily basis that Obama brought his young children to hear this week after week?
I say keep him out front and center in his new $10,000,000 Mansion paid for by donations including $26,000 from Obama himself!.
That must have bought at least a bathroom.
These "tapes" of Jeremiah Wright are full of some things that are the truth and some things that are conjecture like HIV"s origin. His assertion that we brought 911 on ourselves, that statement has a yes and no answer to it, which we are still debating to this very moment. Were we told the complete truth about Iraq? Not according to UK, the Pentagon, or the CIA. The Tuskegee Experiment Really Happened. We are the # 2 weapons supplier to the world. Hiroshima could have been handled better, say dropping the A-Bomb off the coast of Japan thus intimidating them into surrender and saving innocent life. But who knows in hindsight what could have been in that situation. So where is the controversial statement other than the HIV aspect? If you are white, ask yourself, can you really relate to the victims of hundreds of years of hate filled slavery and discrimination? Can you relate to being a Jewish victim of Hitler if you are a Christian and white? No. One could come close. But never, ever really, truly achieving the same level of understanding as the victim.
re "Hiroshima could have been handled better..."
Sheldon Drobny http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/god-damn-americas-media_b_91773.html gives a long list of people who opposed dropping the bombs, including:
~~~EISENHOWER: "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM LEAHY (Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman):
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan..."The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
It goes on and on, including MacArthur, Herbert Hoover ("The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.") and many military and cabinet officers. It's astounding that we aren't taught this.
Every time a black person mentions the proven historical oppression of their people, some white people scream reverse racism,
How sad, how ignorant, and how despicable a claim that some fearful white people are making of the current mud slinging in American politics. If there were a God, that God would not be proud of many of Humanities actions toward Humanity on this planet.
Is it a new concept that a religious leader would talk about damnation of actions of individuals, a group, or even a Nation from God? No. J Fawell, P. Robertson, R. Parsly, J. Haggy have all made statements about Liberals, gays, Muslims, the ACLU, The NAACP, and women"s right groups that are not founded in any form of reality.
Obama praised Rev Wright, but denounced the divisive comments that were made by him. He speaks glowingly of all of the services that the church provides to the Chicago community, and he raised the dialogue about race beyond Rev Wright.
Since his speech, he has been consistent in defending the church as a whole and Rev Wright as a man who still holds unresolved sentiments from the Civil Rights Movement. In Rev Wright's first public interview on PBS, Rev Wright throws Obama under the bus in order to preserve his own legacy. The man is running for president of the United States and Rev Wright dismisses Obama as just a politician telling people what they want to hear.
Obama has no choice but to clear the record once again with another prolific speech.
Obama doesn't need to give another speech.
He needs to cut Wright cut loose, to end his association with him.
It's obvious that Wright isn't a good friend of Obama's or else he wouldn't give any interviews or speechs, let alone continue to make goofy comments...
Reverend Wright doesn't exist for Obama's pleasure, nor did he "throw Obama under the bus." In fact he said Obama's speech on race was a good thing that came out of the controversy. He has to minister to a congregation that's receiving bomb threats and harassment because they are mislabeled as reverse racists. Of course he needs to clear the air now, before things get even more poisonous and someone is physically hurt (I'm sure at least one person who's phoned in death threats against Wright means it).
Take a long-hard look at McCain's spirtual advisors, Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Ron Parsley. They make Wright look moderate by comparison. More frightening is that they wield considerable influence.
Obama's a politician? What a shock!
The Obama lovers will read this as a great interview and case closed, lets move on, but if you really listen to what he is saying, he is saying that Obama has to say what he has to say because he is politician, which tells me that he either truly believes his pastor's views, or he does not condemn them, he only says what he has to say. So, he says/believes one thing in private, but in public, he says what he has to say.
Posted April 24, 2008 | 12:24 PM (EST)