Obama's Pastor Blames America for 9-11

GOD WANTS YOU TO BE RICH,is more disturbing than anything iv'e heard preached by this man,he may do some of that too but it's not the focal point of his ministry.
Some fleese their people unashamedably to line their own pockets,White&Black.
Evil has many faces,they should all be exposed!!!

And when exposed as such all procedes and further procedes should be subject to(oversite)by the congregation by the whole.

reply to post by LLoyd45

---

What you are trying to do is use my comments in order to make a point for yourself. Why don't you just make your point? Whatever it might be.

I haven't asked Pastor Wright for proof. You have. Since you have, personally demand it of him. And while you're at it, send a letter to President Bush and give your highest recommendation that Pastor Wright be put in charge of a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11. Demand that Bush and company provided forensic evidence of the collapsed towers, video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon, and anything else that you can think of that might aid the investigation. Then await your proof from Pastor Wright.

(Also, it is patently ludicrous that you could expect me to answer for Wright. You ask questions that have no relevance to me. The Lord's name in vain? What should I say to that? Should I say, you're right every person who believes in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost should do everything that some other man has told them to do? Is that what you want? Why don't you just say that yourself? I couldn't possibly care less if Wright curses in church, who cares? Do you really think that God gives a damn about what sounds humans choose to make? If those sounds are in worship of a god who actually wants to be worshipped, why would this god take offense? Get real. This is so off-topic it's not even funny.)

If you think Wright is being a coward in avoiding the media, that's your opinion. Who else doesn't have an opinion on this matter?

Like I said, chattel slavery in the US is representative of White oppression. The institution of slavery in the US was meant to benefit those who passed the laws and enforced them for the benefit of White people. The freed slaves who became slave owners operated under that system and were not intended to benefit. If you dig a little deeper you will find that black slave owners nearly always paid for ownership of members of their own families. Which should by any reasonable measure be understandable. This happened under a system of White oppression that they had nothing to do with creating. A system that saw freed slaves as slave owners a threat to the White slave owners. A system that eventually revoked the freed slaves voting rights and property rights, economic privileges, healthcare, education, and access to government civil and social services. This happened after the Civil War. After black men served on both sides. And black men in the south saw Jim Crow come into effect as a token of appreciation for the sacrifices they made. White oppression, through and through.

It was good that you brought up the point about Negro slave owners because it clarifies the point that White oppression isn't about "all White people" or "all rich White people", it is about race based legislation and economic bias that was crafted by White folks for the purpose of benefiting White folks at the expense of other races who have been legislated against.

Any person of any race may toil under a system of White oppression without necessarily being classified as being the "White oppressors". This is because White oppression refers to the system and not to those who toil under it. That is why it is not a racist term even though it explicitly refers to racist laws and economic policies.

In a previous post I mentioned different nationalities that immigrated to the US who participated in the system of White oppression. That does not mean that they were all racists, it just means that they were participants of the system. Just like the Negro slave owners that you mentioned.

White oppression and White oppressors are not equal in meaning. The former refers to the system, and the later refers to those who are sympathetic and advocate such a system. I do, however, think it is appropriate to refer to White oppressors as being racist. Since it would be they who are responsible for creating laws and economic policies on the basis of subjugating one race of humans to another race.

reply to post by poet1b

---

So now I'm a special victim? What does that make you?

Probably better if you stayed on topic.

anyone care to analyze this?

This thread is dominated by two people saying nothing but the same thing over and over.
They should do their love-hate exchange in anouther setting.
Or dump the whole thread.

reply to post by mule skinner

---

No love or hate here. Just pointed out the obvious personal attack in a humorous way. I guess I could have ignored it, but maybe it would have continued. Hopefully it serves to keep the thread on topic.

Soory i had to go negative but it seemed as if it was a showdown. glad to have a response even if it didn't respond to anything on topic that i have posted?

Lots of racist comments on this thread.

reply to post by LLoyd45

---

Racism implies I was offended, which I'm not.

Hillary hasn't had the need for cabs, well ever so that comment is irrelevant.



Obama needs to be heard saying he's racist so people like you don't take it the wrong way.

Obama is not his pastor. I've heard some pretty ridiculous things come out my ex-priest's mouth, but I never said anything. Does that mean I agreed with what he said?

I guess so according to some on this thread. Which couldn't be further from the truth.



I kind of agree with him. Rich white people do run this country. How many powerful ethnic people are? How many black senators? Like 3? Please.

I'm not sure "God Damn America" is necessarily the right response, but he is ranting and raving so I'll let it fly.




I haven't claimed anything. He's either racist or not, which I don't believe so.

Its all a matter of perception anyway.

We could all say he's a racist, but in his heart, he may actually love people of all colors.

The truth is colorblind.

reply to post by Areal51

---

I've made my point several times over, but It's like they say: "There are none blinder than those who will not see"

You simply wish to apply a double standard to the debate. On one hand You believe if a man accuses someone of an injustice, he should factually prove his allegations. But on the other hand, i.e. the Reverend Wright's rantings about 9/11, you want to apply a different standard. He has no need or reason to prove his allegation. I'm not sure how that works personally.

His comments are bigoted, and any reasonable person would take offense. Even Obama was honest enough to admit that. If you substituted black in the place of white, and say Bill Clinton made those comments instead of Rev. Wright, you'd have a whole new perspective on the matter. That's called a double standard.

If race has nothing to do with oppression, why not simply refer to it as oppression? Owning slaves was wrong for both whites and blacks to do. You cannot excuse one without excusing the other though, unless you want to apply your worn out double standard again.

I'm sure some freed blacks did buy their family members, but I doubt any of them purchased 60 or more of there relatives out of the goodness of their hearts. They saw them as a cheap labor source just like the white plantation owners did.

I think we've about exhausted this topic, so let's just agree to disagree on the matter. No hard feelings, and I enjoyed the discussion.

reply to post by biggie smalls

---

Keep those happy thoughts, and I truly hope Reverend Wright isn't the black version of Archie Bunker as he appears to be when he refers to all those rich, White people. Why not just say "Rich people" if wealth is what he has a problem with?

Obama does hisself a discredit also with comments about the "typical white person" when referring to his Grandmother. That's called stereotyping, and it's wrong. You cannot lump all people into a single category based upon the actions of a few. Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary had made a similar comment regarding blacks?

[deleted post]

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Areal51]

reply to post by LLoyd45

---

There you go. You've made your statement in your own words. How hard was that?
_

There is no double standard. There exists, however, more than one standard and system of logic.

Do you really expect a 66 year old man not in the employ of the United States Congress to be able to prove to you US government complicity in the events of September 11, 2001?

Is that a reasonable request of any US citizen who does not agree with the official version of 9/11?

On the other hand, if you want to know how or why Pastor Wright could possibly make statements that claim the US government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, you have only to visit the ATS 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum.

There is logic and then there is reasonable application of logic.
_

Have you not read or understood anything? White oppression is oppression. It is oppression that is designed to benefit Whites at the subjugation of another race; it is a racist system. One who toils under a system of White oppression is not necessarily racist or sympathetic to the system that they toil under. Not any more than persons who toil under a communist system are necessarily communists. For comparison, there are some people who are communist that live and work in the United States.
_

What you should do about the issues of slavery that you bring up is vet your own doubts. Don't expect anybody else to do it for you. At any rate, explain to yourself how freed slaves who decide to make a living doing what they know best, in a system that is designed to work against them, would see another slave as cheap anything.
_

Speak for yourself. Open your own eyes. You should reflect on the words of Thoreau more.






[edit on 25-3-2008 by Areal51]

From this mornings news -

Obama claims his church is Not a crackpot church and he is now defending his mentor and spiritual advisor. So much for him denouncing Wright.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

---

in your post you say that wright has been obamas pastor for the last 20 years...wrong. wright retired 1 1/2 years ago. next that video was taken in 2003..you know...when bush took us to war under false pretenses. also, i have had a neighbor for the last 23 years, ex-marine, family man, decent guy, but he calls black people ni--ers, does that mean i never should talk to him, or except any of the help he has giving me all of these years? no i condemn what he says about black people and have told him not to use that kind of language around me. but i can't change his mind, so should i be put down just for associating with him? seems that karl rove might be doing more then just relaxing back in texas. once again this has the putrid smell of enlightened republican politics. and using FOX NEWS as a sourse? hahahaha!!!!

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

He never denounced Wright. He only denounced some of the things that Wright said. You should read the transcript of Obama's speech addressing the issue of race in America. Would be better than relying on media excerpts that are designed to one worked up over nothing.

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

He defends him at the loss of his own credibility, which is getting more and more tarnished with each passing day. I hope everyone likes McCain for President..

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

---

according to what i have read in the commentaries associated with the scofield bible/with the companion bible and with the book ecclesiastical history/eusebius pamphilius-----Messiah was born 6 bce true time or 2 bc catholic church modified/world time====our present day calendar which the catholic church advanced 4 years to seperate the jewish and nazarene's(apostolic church of G-D) passover from the catholic church's easter.

in other words the true time is 2004 while the catholic /world time is 2008