The Brian Lehrer Show

Brian,

Please stop using the honorific title reverend in correctly. "The Rev." should only be used in writing before the name of a Christian clergy person. If you were interviewing two judges, you would not say that you are having two honorables on your show. If you were speaking to some men, you would not say you are having two misters on your show. Perhaps this is something to be taken up by Leonard and Patricia T. O'Conner.

Just because this pastor preached something not everyone agrees with, he has the right to preach whatever he believes in his church whether others agree or not.

Writing today in The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne gets it.

In "Another Angry Black Preacher," Dionne writes:

"Let's ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think?

[...]

"Listen to what [Martin Luther] King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968:

"'God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war...And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place.'

"King then predicted this response from the Almighty: 'And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power.'

[...]

"I cite King not to justify Wright's damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories but to suggest that Obama's pastor and his church are not as far outside the African American mainstream as many would suggest. I would also ask my conservative friends who praise King so lavishly to search their consciences and wonder if they would have stood up for him in 1968."

I do not question nor do i care what rev. wright is preaching in his church. I have a problem that someone who is running for president of the United States, is attending a church who allows or believes in some of mr. wright's comments.

That is the real issue here I think.

MLK did not speak in attack mode - nothing personal AND he was leading a MOVEMENT and that was not shock rhetoric or rhetoric at all!

You can't put MLK in the same box as Barack's pastor - Not at all. MLK backed up any of his words with action - he was our American Ghandi -

MLK incited people to peace and action in teh form of resistance

Anyway isn't the argument against Barack joining this church because people accused him of joining for political reasons, to become "black enough"

When speaking of the desire to bring people together how do Black Clergy expect to be taken seriously when they preach and support anti-gay laws? Rev. Flake supported George Bush in 2000 because of his anti-gay stance. Didn't Dr. King speak of no one being free if any are oppressed?

I've been to black churches with friends - I saw nohting like Barack's pastor, just really spirited preaching, worship, music - uplifting

I'm sick of this coverage MOVE ON. I don't understand why it matters.

The Clintons accepted some $10 million dollars in donations from the Saudi Monarch a state sponsor of terrorism. An oppressive theocracy that subjects women to men and limits democratic rights to people.

If we are going to blame candidates for associations let's start with the big ones. Don't even get me started on McCain.

Disgusted!

Brian, instead of quoting the snippet provided to you by Fox News why don't you see the full sermon and either play it on your show in its entirety or analyze it and give a summary of his message.

It is NOT what FOX fed you and the rest of the MSM:

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

This whole line of attack on Obama is so tiring...let me offer a Jewish perspective. Often a rabbi will share views (on Israel, in particular, but also about antisemitism in general) in a sermon that broad swaths of the congregation disagree with. But people are complicated, and perhaps Jews intuit this more readily.

To Leonardo:

as an educated person of reason, you think we should not question our government or that governments commit crimes and attrocities?

Two things: first, I don't put any of what Rev. Wright preached onto the back of Obama. So as far as that goes, Mr. Obama is okay and free of those charges. But secondly, In light of the present administration and the horrors and anti-American, anti-constitutional running of the government under this administration, I think Rev. Wright was on some issues, well, right. I agree with many of his criticisms on what he said regarding the aforementioned situation UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION. However, I feel that we have already been damned by having this administration. So here he should have said God SAVE America... please, please.

RACIAL MCCARTHYISM is what's being done to Obama.

He's being held accountable for someone else's words.

It's guilt by association that relies on underlying racial fears and prejudices for it's fuel.

Obama and all decent Americans must stand up to this ugly evil racist nonsense and call it out for what it is!!!

This discussion should be widened in scope. I am white and was raised a Catholic, and would argue that many aspects of the Catholic church could be construed as hate speech. Granted, there are no Catholics in the current contenders for President, but how many Americans who are voting go to Catholic churhes and are perfectly fine with the Catholic church condemning homosexuality and women who seek abortions? I do not go to church anymore, but I also respect that many people (some family members included) get positive things from the experience, and that the church also does a lot of good. This should be part of this discussion, as perhaps it would remind white Americans that grey areas exist in many aspects of religious worship and life.

I'm sorry to learn how many American's don't want to engage with the justified bitterness and bracing social criticism in Wright's rhetoric. He went too far, but it's not hard to see why.

I used to hear this kind of talk in my public school in Seattle in the 70s:

I am white and was a minority (one of 45% in a majority black high school with a black administration). Representatives from Jesse Jackson's Push/Excel Rainbow Coalition would regularly come and give inspirational assemblies. As the speakers would get excited and worked up, they'd rise from general oratory about empowerment to very specific oratory about empowement even in the face of white oppression.

It was uncomfortable and it turned off my white friends and destroyed the camaraderie among the races of the assembly for a moment.

Nonetheless, I counted it as a privilege to have this insight into a deep feeling within the black community. Hearing this made me a better person, I think.

Chestinee,

I wonder if you have seen a full Wright sermon or only the clips? I have not seen either but I think it is would be really faulty to see sensational excerpts and think you know what a lecture, or a man, is about.

It appears to me that certain people have an issue with Wright's comments who then have no problem with similar statements by MLK (like the clip you played) seem to have a problem with the fact that Wright is yelling while he says it. You may not like the way he is expressing what he is saying, but don't confuse that with what he is saying (and NO, I personally do NOT agree with all of Wright's points made in those clips).

A lot of whites during the time of MLK thought he was a "trouble-maker", etc. Now he's generally looked at differently. It seems to me that a lot of the objection to Wright's comments is of the same racist impulse. "Yeah there's injustice in this society but how DARE you be angry about it" is the message that is coming across to me.

It's the very definition of hypocrisy.

#6

Now THAT is a good point! I totally agree.

PLEASE see these videos:

it will put these quotes in perspective:

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

God Damn America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related

Before white New Yorkers start acting all high and mighty regarding Obama's minister, perhaps they check on what some of Hillary Clinton's pastors have said. Or what John McCain's preachers have endorsed. Or what Joseph Lieberman has been hearing.

You have failed to ask the right question. The question is NOT "is this sort of jeremiad common or widespread?" or "Has this diatribe by Rev. Wright hurt Obama?" Rather, the correct question is, "How true is what Rev. Wright said?" It is true that the U.S. government has built bigger and bigger prisons. It is a hyperbole, but still largely true, that the government has allowed drugs to impoverish the black community. It is - in a special way - true that the Bible contains condemnation (damnation, if you will) of those in power who neglect their subjects/flocks. "Is it true?" is often the right question, as is the more nuanced question, "For whom is it true?"

Chris O and Chestinee:

Please see 2 of the full sermons in CONTEXT. This was a HIT job by FOX. Remember the sale of the Iraq war and the swiftboating of Kerry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw&feature=related

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

Leonardo Andres,

By that standard NONE of the candidates are qualified to be president!

I am assuming that is geared towards me, so yes of course we should question what our government says and does. I am not a blind patriot who believes that the U.S. does not do any wrong.

But Obama is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to appease this big circle of people, that in reality does not get along.

He is trying to prove he is black enough & white enough to be president. So yes again, I have a problem when he associates himself with people that preach anger.

Please note that in many churches, pastors come and go. Often, these pastors battle with the congregation but the church people remain loyal to the church and its congregation. In the Methodist church, for example, pastors are appointed for about 5 years. True there are some people who follow ministers around from church to church. And true, some people join a church because of the pastor. But I believe most people join a church because of the church itself.

1. I'm a white independent. Nonetheless agree with Wright's comments to the extent that they are based on fact- that is, as a country we did bomb Hiroshima & Nagasaki when it served our purpose. We do need to explore the seeming double standard

2. In these discussions we always need to distinguish love of country vs. government- they are not the same

3. Double standards abound and that includes re: Spitzer. Check out the story of David and Bathsheba- David commiting both adultery and murder...

4.And by the way-hard hitting politics and press coverage is nothing new- check out the 18th century in this country

My point is- we should not reflexly write off double standards- they abound and need to be adressed

Anyway these two pastors are more about making money in their mega churchs and telling people that faith in jesus is going to bring them financial rewards (empowerment). All that Social justice nonsense that MLK jr and even jesus no its become about money. I'm also offended by this segment, is this Brians way of helping White liberal and phony progressives deal with their fear of an angry black community. He brings to yokels to come on an spew nonsense.

#21

Exactly Alexandra. Of course the mcm (or NPR) wants to really get into that(particularly in the case of McCain). We wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of people's opinions, would we?

To Dolores #6: - So we should reject all blacks because some black Christian ministers are anti-gay?

By that reasoning we should reject all white people or at least ALL whites coming from Bible Belt states because their ministers denounce homosexuality.

One can disagree with individuals - don't make this into a rejection of black people or even the black clergy.

BRAVO #8 and #9,

BUT, the BLS doesn't want to promulgate anything which might get in the way with their nauseating bias for Hillary. Also,Leo(#9) why not send the same info to the New York Times and try your luck.

Is it really outrageous to suspect the

U.S. government of spreading HIV when

you've witnessed Tuskegee medical, question

the standard deffinition of terrorism when you've dropped

atomic weapons on civilians, live and work

in a city, Chicago, which built intentionally

segregated housing projects and assassinated

your political leaders, Fred Hapmpton, in bed?

Caller is right on. Do people really think that black people get together and say how happy they are with their treatment in America? Please.

Remembering the history of discrimination and slavery is one thing. However, the US gov DID NOT create AIDs or crack. You can't have it both ways, remembering history and making it up as well.

To Chris #31: I am trying to send this information to the NYTimes and other MSM outlets. The Mass media just feeds off eachother. They took the hit job from Fox and just regurgitated it without doing any journalism work.

I would like for the responsible media to listen and analyze these sermons in their entirety

I don't know about AIDs but The CIA agents admit to being parts of programs that flooded black neighborhoods with crack.

It is clear we still live in the type society Obama address, just look at the case of the blackman in LI (Mr. White) who shot the young white man. The anger it has generated.

#25

Yet you have no issue when McCain or Billary try to "have it both ways"? Billary has tried to have it both ways several times in several cases. And come to think of it McCain as the current caller has justly pointed out is a flip-flopper.

and exactly how is Obama trying to "have it both ways" in this case? WRIGHT, said those things...not Obama. As a reasonable intelligent adult do you really expect to be held responsible for every single thing that every person in your life or are associated with have ever said? Obviously not, it's a ridiculous standard. If that is the criteria for being President then we may as well just abolish the position because noone can pass that standard.

since when is this nation made of black and white? I thought we were more diversed than that?

Shouldn't I as a colombian american be offended that in this conversation the only two races that exist in this country are black and white?

What a great revelation that in the U.S. there is no racial harmony. As far as i am concerned the president of the united states should not be the candidates for the blacks, or for the whites, or for the hispanics. He should be the president of the U.S. and have policies that are best for the entire nation.

The problem is that barack obama is trying to appease all of this different believes and is nto working for him. The unity and change he is preaching is an utopian ideal, that is now blowing up in his face.

#33

I agree. But the man is entitled to his opinion.

What is going on is a smear campaign to lnk Obama to Farrakhan, the black Muslims and the far left. It is a more sophisticated version of the "He's a muslim" e-mail that was circulating on the web a couple of months ago.

Obama attends a black church; Wright's rhetoric is not remarkable. He has rejected Wright's politics. The only reason that the issue is not closed is because the Clinton campaign (via Lanny Davis and other surrogates) have kept it afloat.

Obama's speech was wonderful.

Chris #33 - It is well documented, Here are just a sampling, by the US government, that the Reagan administration financed the wars in Central America in the 80's with cocaine trade.

The dumping of cocaine on our cities led to crack cocaine as a way of expanding the market to consume this extra supply of cocaine. Was it deliverate to destroy blacks? NOPE. But it shows a lack of regard and respect by our government officials for our society. These complaints are based on some truth:

Knowledge of Drug Trafficking by Contras: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/060800a.html

Contras Cocaine trafficking link to Crack epidemic in California: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/980507-l.htm

There is not a gap between black and white perceptions. There's a gap between people who are willing to admit that there still are racial problems in this country and those who aren't. I'm a 50 year old white woman who understands that the day to day experience of black people in this country is very different than mine. Too many people are too quick to paint Reverend Wright as an extremist because he made inflammatory comments on a few occasions. I think we need to take a step back and look at the many years of Reverend Wright's service rather than two minutes of angry remarks. President Clinton is one of many who has seen Reverend Wright as an important religious leader. Reverend Wright attended a meeting of religious leaders in the White House on September 11, 1998. There is a picture of President Clinton and Reverend Wright at this event, which Senator Clinton's schedule for that day shows she also attended. President Clinton's remarks at that event were about imperfection and forgiveness. I'm not trying to get either President Clinton or Senator Clinton in trouble here, rather I think we need to take a step back and put Reverend Wright's comments back into their larger context. (The picture is at http://bp0.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-LelYDnwnI/AAAAAAAAAAU/Bbm3xehqJ6M/s1600-h/File0437.jpg, President Clinton's remarks are at http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=108317374876+14+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

I would not be surprised at the AIDs comment given the fact of the Tuskegee Experiment. I don't agree with the AIDS comment, but I understand why Rev. Wright could in agree make that accusation.

I have a feeling you would not ask that question of a white person. I really don't think so. You might ask it of the denomination issue but not the racial, ie, white issue and there is a difference and big one.

Brian, you cannot equate Rev. Wright's comments and Obama's reaction to John McCain and the comments of the religious right pastors. Rev. Wright and Obama have had a long personal history. John McCain has actively courted the political support of these right-wing extremist pastors--BIG DIFFERENCE!

do either of your guests have an explanation for the way different groups have handled their own historic genocides/oppressions - for example the Black South Africans and Apartheid; the Jewish community and the Holocaust - I am not aware of hateful rhetoric from leaders in these communities. What made American Pastors such as Rev Wright choose his path?

RE: on AIDS being a White conspiracy; from a rational point of view it appears irrational. And yet, given the history of the (mis)treatment of Black people by the medical establishment (CF Tuskegee) it becomes understandable.

Leonardo,

Obama is not preaching a utopian ideal; he's trying to find common ground while acknowledging differences.

For example, he is the first politician -- black or white -- who has addressed the prejudices of white-working class ethnics in a sensitive manner. The attitudes are awful, but the people are not; they are struggling and resentful and do not realize that their problems arise from class, not race. Hence white ethincs blame blacks for their plight, when the real problem is the policies of the Republicans for whom they are voting. I have had this conversation with members of my family for years, to no avail. They're not going to hear Obama either, but he's at least aware of and is not over-simplifying the problems.

Obama's was simply the best, most right-on-target speech that anyone has given about race in the past 25 years. Anyone.

#33 and #39, the ideas of the government creating crack and spreading it in urbs is not so far out there.

Along the lines of #31's comments, nearly 2/3s of people believe the US gov either had knowledge of and did nothing to stop, or helped facilitate the 9/11 attacks.

If that is a plausible thought why is US gov crack so hard to believe?

Follow the rest of the lemmings you call patriots.

is the segment over yet? so sick of this whole thing.

We need to go beyond the out of context sound bytes, and hypocrisy of mean spirited politics, if we are going to constructively resolve the challenges confronting us today.

A highly respected American religious figure mades some intersting comments in the White House while he was the guest

of the then sitting President not very long ago.

You may read more at:

http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/douglass_july4.htm#ednote

and then consider the "Golden Rule" (which is understood around the world) as our actions produce our future.

--30--

#37 (ab)

Since this segment is about barack obama, i am talking about him. I did not know i had to list all of my other positions in order to get a point across.

All politicians try to have things both way. You are right about that. And the three politicians what we have now are all flip flopper's. My point is that Obama has presented himself as the great uniter. You can not unite a nation through superficial words. You can not unite a nation that in reality does not have racial harmony.

So i choose to hold obama to the standards i set forth. I am the one voting I ask myself if i would attend a church like that? and if i agree with the rethoric that is coming from there? People are responsible for the people that they associate themselves with.

No it isn't racial mccarthyism it's teh big mess a new president could walk into and who can handle it, and i ay not this empty suit who is all talk about how above it all he is when he is not all all above it all!

Barack has arugued that "words matter" and I completely agree. The blood libel that Jews require the blood of Christian babies to make Passover Matzoh raged over the Christain world from the Middle Ages into the 20th century when it's attendant atrocities reached their apogee in the Holocaust.

The spreading of the ridiculous notion that black men are "oversexed" and cannot control their desire for sex with white women, lead directly to the national disgrace of lynching.

Accusations like those above dehumanize their targets and make it possible for others to deprive them of life and property without guild or shame. Statements blaming "whites", or Jewish doctors", or "the white power structure" for introducing AIDS and crack into black neighborhoods are in the same category. They are in a different class altogether from the words of MLK criticizing the gov't over the war and it is disgraceful to hear so many in the black community seeking to softpedal if not outright justify this kind of talk by leaders like Rev. Wright.

The commentary about the preacher Wrights' sermons is in my opinion useless. Those of us who are over 40 should be aware of the horrendous history of the treatment of blacks .

The problem is not his right to freedom of speech, the problem is the person who aspires to the presidency of the US. He had no objection to the damning not of the government but of the country. He has shown by his failure to walk out of such a congregation that he is not presidential material.

I think one of the callers asked an important question. She wondered why white people were afraid to have a conversation about race. My observation is that it's common in white society to confuse charges of entrenched and historic American racism (an indisputable fact) with a personal attack, making the white person instantly defensive. These are people who have led hard working lives, but they also have little or no concept of what it's like to be black, Asian, or any other non-caucasian ethnicity. I've met a great many caucasians who readily acknowledge that this country has a horrific history of racism. But they feel that it happened a long time ago in a far away place because the most open forms of racism was not something they've ever witnessed.

Leonardo, I thought Bill Clinton's speeches were much more compassionate and validating to all concerned (taylor marsh's website had one yesterday)

Mild Mrs. Onassis said of our nation, without rebuke, " if they're killing Kennedys, my kids are next and we'd better leave". Some Israeli guest on your show, but not most, have condemned their country's treatment of Palestinians as, " disproportionate, counterproductive, harsh, and contradictory to our history". Many callers found them traitorous, while many listeners agreed. Tone can be all important to some and matter not at all to others. Black anger in Harlem and elsewhere is not relegated to some dim past. On TV Calvin O. Butts called Columbia's Manhattanville expansion " an explosion waiting to happen ". And while this was merely a ploy for extortion, he was dead on. Naturally, people are not going to riot over the 125th Street rezoning per-se, but sometime soon there will be yet another Sean Bell-like murder---they are as regular as clockwork. Then you'll be surprised at the result. But people familiar with government's role in displacement here or NY'S pervasive segregation by race and class will not. How diverse do you truly imagine most museums, dance companies, newspapers, law firms or radio stations in NYC are?

I'm from Malaysia of Chinese descent, and I attend a predominantly white, conservative Presbyterian church, and I have predominantly white friends. I don't pretend to know a fraction of what the Black community goes through in this country. However, when I heard what Rev. Jeremiah Wright was preaching, my immediate reaction, as a person who reads the old testament and pays attention to the tone and message of the OT prophets, was that he is very much playing the role of a prophet.

Prophets in the OT show up tell the nation that what they are doing is wrong, and that their God is very much against them for their transgressions, and typically the trouble they are in is the result of their refusal to love and pursue social justice.

However, there is never a question of a prophet's love or even God's love for Israel in the OT. The only question is what is God's response to what Israel is doing, and what Israel's response should be to condemnation. Bible-believing Christians in America, regardless of race, need to hear more of that message. Very often in the bible, when there are people in the OT that say "everything is going to be ok, because God is on our side", the true prophet denounces them as liars, and point to the crimes of the nation as evidence that God is against them.

To Chestinee and others who have, IMO, somewhat tiresomely raised the issue of Barack having to "prove" himself as black enough (or white enough)....

Please! Enough!

Have you no decency? This is a man who grew up without a father, and who had to make his own way in the continental US, as his family lived in Hawaii and his white mom had returned to live in Indonesia.

He needed a church, this was the church in his community.

I find Wright's comments offensive, but not as offensive as the naive insistence that he had no rhyme or reason for that anger.

Please stop repeating the nonsense that mixed race people should have to "prove" themselves one way or another. It is counterproductive to EVERYONE.

Bottom Line:

If this tactic "succeeds" in asassinating the Obama candidacy it will say something very ugly about America.

This is a manifestation of racism and of dirty politics folks. You can dress it up and spin it all you like; but at the core...this ploy is downright evil.

In all the broughhaha over the Rev. Wright's comments, I have been struck by the systematic misunderstanding (not to say deliberate ignorance) of at least one central question. Given that Rev. Wright's function as a preacher is to express God's attitude toward the subject of the day, what did we expect him to say, that God approves of the murder of innocents? or that God approves of racial bigotry, of lynchings, of institutional racial prejudice? Perhaps that God is a good old boy who turns a blind eye to atrocity?

As for the Rev. King's comments, again to characterize these as hyperbolic is grossly to misunderstand and indeed to participate in the conspiracy of self-deception he sought to dispell. Dr. King's description of the U.S. as the greatest perveyor of violence in the world was true when he uttered those words. It remains true today even moreso.

Do us the favor of at least trying to say it like it is.

More than once one of your guests paraphrased Jeremiah's words "They have healed also the hurt of ... my people slightly, saying, Peace,peace; when there is no peace." (6:17). The pointed out that there can be no resolution of any problem where systematic denial sweeps the problem beneath the nearest rug. Both the Rev. Wright and Dr. King were attempting to pull back the rug and say it like it is. You would do well to do the same and not participate in the conspiracy of self-denial that seems endemnic in this nation.

Brian did I hear you say "Reverend Obama"this morning?Interesting slip of the tongue!! Thank-you though for otherwise leading this segment of your show and generally this subject with sensitivity and intelligence.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, CAN WE MOVE ON FROM THIS GARBAGE ALREADY! HOW ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN CHINA! THERE ARE REAL PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD!

L-Leo

I am not saying to reject all blacks. Please do not try and make me out to be a racist. Actually I grew up in Tennessee and know that Congressman Harold Ford Jr

was pressured into voting yes to ban gay marriage in the constitution by leading black ministers. They threatened to no longer support him if he did not vote in that manner. He did and also lost his senate run a year later. My point is if we are going to talk about acceptance of racial differences then is it not fair to expect acceptance of all? Now do you understand my point? This is the important part.....how will these hurts heal? If not we will see John McCain sworn in as president next year.....