Thread:

Rev Wright

It is so hard to get beyond that. I don't understand honestly.

It sounds like hate.

Wright is a fine result of liberation theology--a twisted, false interpretation of scripture. His teaching easily falls into the category of apostate heresy and is exactly what the bible warns against.

Originally Posted by you gots 2 chill

Thats not what he is saying. Did you watch it? And comparing him to David Duke is absurd. Rev Wright and Trininty UCC has never lynched anyone or condoned violence of any kind.

It is a about far more than just this one quote for me. Rev Wright is pushing more of a socio-political agenda, than he is a religious one and he is using distorted information and ethnocentrism in the classic mannor of the demagogue, just like David Duke, George Wallace, and Ron Karenga etc have...His message may be a bit more trendy and outwardly less vile than Duke's is, however his Demagoguery is in the same style and thus the comparison is valid...

Who is preaching racism?

Originally Posted by pb123

Who is preaching racism?

Some might say Rev Wright is. However there is another term that I feel discribes him better. That term is racialist and it basically refers to those who are all ate up in the a$$ with matters of race and or racial identity....I feel that Rev Wright is a racialist, an ethnocentrist, and an obvious demogogue, but I hesitate to call him a racist.

Originally Posted by eliminatedsprinter

Some might say Rev Wright is. However there is another term that I feel discribes him better. That term is racialist and it basically refers to those who are all ate up in the a$$ with matters of race and or racial identity....I feel that Rev Wright is a racialist, an ethnocentrist, and an obvious demogogue, but I hesitate to call him a racist.

Ok I am not sure what those terms are so I am going to look them up. Is this directed at me in the sense of feeling the need to prove I am not or am i just not getting it at all? I re read it and I think I get it.

Meaning angry over past racial conflicts? Or not being able to see people equal?

Originally Posted by pb123

Ok I am not sure what those terms are so I am going to look them up. Is this directed at me in the sense of feeling the need to prove I am not or am i just not getting it at all?

Not directed at you, just attempting to give an answer to your question...

Originally Posted by eliminatedsprinter

Not directed at you, just attempting to give an answer to your question...

Thanks ES!

I know I am ignorant when it comes to some of this stuff. Just trying to get it right!

Originally Posted by you gots 2 chill

Just in case you want to hear the whole thing.



Maybe you disagree, but maybe its not as simple you thought.
Carry on.

I just caught the simple word. I hope to not offended your feelings. I was using that terminology with Ultra 26 because he was playing a game as well with me.

I am ignorant on lots of things. I need some simple explanations myself. I see the hate in this forum and don't agree with hate. I really do look at things from all perspectives. I am ok when people disagree. I just want to understand this election. We are voting for our future.

I was leaning with Barrack until I started questioning my own observations in the past 20 plus years.

Originally Posted by pb123

I was leaning with Barrack until I started questioning my own observations in the past 20 plus years.

This is what EVERYONE should do, as a normal behavior. Pay attention to what goes on, and decide for yourself what it means and it's implications for you.

Otherwise, as long as you ignore a person's historical behaviors, you are likely to think that a person who has a vocal history of wanting to raise taxes to pay for more govt. welfare programs, MIGHT actually lower them instead.


I am no big fan of Mcain, due entirely to his past senatorial behaviors.
I am a SMALLER fan of Obama, because of expressly the things he has said HE WANTS TO DO, which I think are BAD IDEAS.

Once again I get to choose between someone I do not like, and someone I consider potentially dangerous.
"You ALWYAS choose the lesser of 2 wevils". Cpn. "Lucky" Jack Aubry

Originally Posted by you gots 2 chill

Good points. This post isn't about slavery, it's about putting Wright's comments in perspective.

Here is an example of one of the primary sources of Rev Wright's "perspective".http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...mony-0:)coffee

When I hear people talk about how bad the "white devil" is, I think sometimes it is lost that many of those "white devils" lost their lives in this country to end slavery.

I think it is sad that noone mentions that as well.

Brian

Originally Posted by J Shelfo

If American history was studied as it should, more of the general population would know that slavery in America was condoned in the Colonys by Great Britain. When the writers of our Bill Of Rights and Declaration of Independence where forming the words to those documents, months of debates ensued. Many knew what the phrase, "All men are created equal" really entailed. But all the framers could not agree on the inclusion of the black slaves in the wording and ultimately in practice. Enough opposition existed, that there was danger of having no agreement at all. However the wording they did use left open the inclusion of all men. Unfortunately, it took a cival war and the lives of more Americans in our history to end slavery. Many races and nations of people where slaves in pre-history and recorded history, so many of our ancestors could have been slaves. When I listen to people like Rev. Wright their ignorance usually outshines the rhetoric they spew out, But they need something to justify their phony causes. America is the greatest country that exists. We have freedoms here no other civilization has ever formed. J. Shelfo Sr.