The best way to understand Rev. Wright is to go beyond the sound bites and the talking heads and watch him in action in various venues, from viewing his complete sermons, to Bill Moyers, to today's National Press Club speech/Q&A.

While I do not agree with everything Rev. Wright says, I think he is a dynamic and engaging speaker. The media latched onto Rev. Wright because controversy boosts ratings and sells newspapers.

The fact that people are getting so worked up about some of the things he's said is a reflection on some of the issues we as a nation aren't willing to address head on, such as the US preaching democracy throughout the world and looking the other way at dictatorial governments in the name of oil. Think about it. What is more warped? What Rev. Wright says, or the US spending trillions of taxpayers money killing and being killed in Iraq all so people can drive SUVs and live in McMansions.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak, I liked the article the only thing I differ with is your writing, "I think Obama can meet the challenge. His speech on race from Philadelphia
was almost universally acknowledged as a great speech, and the man who was
capable of writing it will be capable of doing more in the same vein."

No, Barak Obama has spent too many years under the influence of Rev. Wright, you do not spend that amount of time and energy, breathing, digesting, enveloping, yourself with the aura of someone who's perspective and views are that much different from your own. Now, Barak and Rev. Wright have compelelty different styles of expressing themselves but both clearly desire to command and control through the use of their verbal styles and where Rev. Wright is more the performance Preacher, Barak is more the subdude lecturer.

I think Barak Obama has great promise, but, right now, at this time, I think he is not the man to meet the challenge, in any way, shape, or form. There is absolutely nothing in Barak's legislative or Senate history yhat warrants this kind of confidence, imo, and being a fantastic, inspiring writer means only that, nothing more, especially, taking on the burden of leading and governing a Nation that already faces numerous problems.

It is nice to see that, you, too, Deepak, see only what you want to see when you want what you want. When it comes to Barak Obama, imo, I do not think you are seeing the forest through the trees.
Although, th same could be said about what I am seeing....hmmmmmm.

have a great day ruth

Well, I haven't seen any of the Wright videos, but I've heard enough to get the point. Regardless, I still believe that "the president of the USA will be a young male," and that male will do great things for America and the world. It's the beginning of change for all, which will lead to better and more peaceful world.

Love, Char

It is a distraction from the truth created by the egoic mind.

Ministers and their Sermons
by: Mike Lux
Mon Apr 28, 2008
Huffington Post, Open Left

I haven't written much about the Rev. Wright thing because so many people have taken this topic on ad infinitum that there hasn't seemed much new to say. But with him doing his media tour thing, I thought I would weigh in on a topic not that much covered in the progressive blogosphere, which is the nature of ministers and their sermons. I only go to church these days when I am back home in Lincoln, but as the grandson and brother of Methodist ministers, and the son of the lay (non-clergy) leader of the Nebraska Methodist Church, this is a topic I know something about- at my family dinner table, if the topic was politics, you could take even odds on whether we were talking regular politics or church politics.

My minister brother and I were taking a few days back about the whole Wright thing, and he commented, "I sure wouldn't want my parishioners to be held responsible for the stuff I've said in my sermons." And that sentiment is true for every good minister I know of. What I was always told growing up was that a minister's job was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Bad preachers speak in mushy truisms watered down to the lowest common denominator. Good ministers stir people up, challenge their congregants' assumptions, make people uncomfortable. They should serve, in the language of the church, a prophetic role that speaks truth to power.

They can get away with that, if they are good at their work, by that comforting the afflicted part of their job: visiting sick and elderly people at the hospital and in their homes, doing the funeral services, counseling those in trouble. When a minister does that sort of thing, they build an unshakable loyalty that allows them to survive, say, giving a sermon in favor of gay rights in North Platte, Nebraska. There were probably five people in my brother's congregation of 300 that agreed with what he said in such a sermon that day, but they didn't fire him or quit the congregation in droves because of it. That congregation knew my brother to be a good and gentle man who had been there for all of them time and time again in the hardest of times, and so they accepted what he said in his sermon without necessarily agreeing with it. I'm guessing that if one of them had run for office in North Platte, and bee confronted with that gay rights sermon by my brother, they would have said about what Barack Obama did of Jeremiah Wright- "Well, I didn't like what he said, but that man performed my marriage and baptized my children and brought me closer to my faith, so I'm not going to walk away form him personally."

Good ministers say dramatic things, stir things up, and push people hard to look at what they believe and how they act. That's their job. To hold their congregants accountable for every word they say in a sermon is absurd, and shows the people who attack them for such that they don't understand religion very well.

Aloha

In Deepak's Peace Book he shared about The Stanford Experiment. It is where students where split in two groups: guards and prisoners. The guards became very abusive to the prisoners. It feels like Rev. Wright's comments are mild to the reaction he is getting. It is important not to throw the baby out of the bath water. I feel we as Americans are very angry at Bush, because we are feeling the consequences of his behavior. You just have to remember Katrina, to not to cognitively distance from who is the real monster whose behavior we have been powerless over. Why... where do we make our money... look at McCain's wife... he was a Pow... befriends the enemy {his own self-indulgence}. Rev. Wright is an Angel. love patty

Bill Moyers interviews (April 25, 2008) the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in his first broadcast interview with a journalist since he became embroiled in a controversy for his remarks and his relationship with Barack Obama. Wright, who retired in early 2008 as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Senator Obama is a member, has been at the center of controversy for comments he made during sermons, which surfaced in the press in March.

And still...... the media, and people blinded by bias like Ruth, choose to focus on the sound bites. If you want to watch the entire vid and the full Transcript:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Re. #1 Ruth

"I think Barak Obama has great promise, but, right now, at this time, I think he is not the man to meet the challenge, in any way, shape, or form. "

That's because you are Hillary shill, and she is simply the best candidate. No arguments, evidence or debate. If you say so. The progressive and liberal blogosphere and the politically aware are not ignorant like you. They stand for ideology, awareness and objectivity unlike a cultist/sexist following of Clinton or Obama. No wonder Obama wins big among voters below age 60. No wonder female vote in Democratic primaries is 60% and still Clinton manages to lose. It seems that women over 65 are worried that they can't see a female president in their lifetime(as if its their life goal)if Hilary loses, pending nearing death.

"There is absolutely nothing in Barak's legislative or Senate history yhat warrants this kind of confidence, imo, and being a fantastic, inspiring writer means only that, nothing more, especially, taking on the burden of leading and governing a Nation that already faces numerous problems."

"absolutely nothing" The blindness is so stark that your ignorance and bias is appalling.

Being a fantastic inspiring writer and being a great leader are not mutually exclusive. Its a false dilemma.

On the contrary, putting his oratory skills which are complimented by his actions aside, Obama's record and experince is much better than Clinton's. Obviously you are in a state of denial.

"It is nice to see that, you, too, Deepak, see only what you want to see when you want what you want. When it comes to Barak Obama, imo, I do not think you are seeing the forest through the trees.
Although, the same could be said about what I am seeing....hmmmmmm."

Sure, the bigger fool is the one who indulgences in his/her foolishness and ignorance... knowing full well.

I really loved this article. Thank you. I wonder if you would like to be Obama's advisor... what a world it would be.

It's all about the game of perception, where individuals attempt to mold a choice of perception in the minds of others. That is what is going on this political contest, an attempt to sell a story. Most often the perception is a fiction that maintains a story line from which the perpetrators benefit or find a false sense of security in. A story line that helps them to obscure the truth about one’s own self that one is not willing to face. A story to cast blame upon others allowing us to shirk our own responsibility, and focusing on those that have committed seemingly greater transgressions against Self, than those we have committed so that we can feel a little better about ourselves in that at least we are not that bad.

What I have seen is sound bites taken out of context, used to create false perceptions and unreality.

I think Jeremiah Wright's is an interesting character, part entertainer, a product of his environment, a creation of the society he lives in, and I would certainly invite him to the party for the (R)evolution.

The wise embrace and transform rather than reject and exclude.

What many do not realize is that everyone is trying to communicate a truth; of course the communication of this truth is often warped by the fictions in our minds so it comes out tainted failing to convey the truth that seeks to emerge and become resident in the minds of man.

To successfully convey the truth one's mind must be void of the fictions, otherwise the words come out distorting the truth we are attempting to convey. So rather than fault one’s inability to properly articulate a truth, and focus on the distortion, we should seek to see the truth which is the impetus for the words being spoken and not the words themselves because words can create illusion.

It could be said that behind all the words of hate, can be found the truth, a request for love.

If Obama and his associates are reading here then he has the divine as a political advisor.

When young one thought to destroy the evil people of the world but having evolved and gained wisdom one realized it is not the people but the fictions in the minds of people that needed to be dissolved. It is the one great fiction that spawns all the other fictions; that one great fiction that you are not I, for all are born innocent into a world of fiction that is passed on by one generation to the next. Speak the words that destroy the fictions in their minds, and while the truth may first be denied, once aware, the truth becomes self evident and is it’s own authority.

And from his mouth came Excalibur glinting and blazing with the light and nothing born of fiction could stand against him.

~Infinite Play

Dear Dr. Chopra,

I'd like to refer to what Ruth said in Posting No.2: ..."There is nothing in Barak's legislative or Senate history that warrants this kind of confidence, imo, and being a fantastic, inspiring writer means only that, nothing more, especially taking on the burden of leading and governing a Nation that already faces numerous problems."

Obama has definitely been sending out mixed messages regarding his sincerity as a dedicated believer in Reconciliation. Surely he would have distanced himself from Rev. Wright long before now if his belief system differed so much from the one espoused by Rev. Wright.

When you have "friends" like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who needs any enemies? Rev. Wright might just as well proclaim himself a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton. Every word out of his mouth contributes to the failing image of Obama as a supporter of Reconciliation. Wright preaches Divisiveness and hatred. Rev. Wright would have to be a complete idiot not to be aware of how damaging his statements are to
Obama. "Wright" is definitely a "Wrong" in his preaching during this political campaign.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

1...barack is too good for u nay-saying losers..

2...what if he decides...enuff is enuff...and drops out o the race...wud u be happy with ur remaining choices?

3...HC has absolutely no morals, no class....for sticking with a stinking impeached cheater...

4...and with that 'beauty' they tug along on the trail...she ain't gonna be grandma anytime soon...and u can bet on that...whoa!

After reading Richard's commentary in Posting No.10 I would like to say that I agree with him about the political contest being a game of fictional story telling by the participants, aimed towards painting a desired perception in the minds of the public.

Excuse my skepticism but, I've watched as too many "professed protectors of the people" have turned-tail and done the exact opposite of what they had promised.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

The New Republic artcile by Noam Scheiber gives an interesting perspective:
29.04.2008

Why'd Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?

The question is worth revisiting now that his ex-pastor is threatening his entire campaign.

I've heard two basic theories since the Wright tapes first surfaced in March. The first is cynical: Obama was a black politician in Chicago with an exotic background and intimidating credentials. He needed a home in a black church to gain credibility with his less educated, less affluent, more parochial-minded constituents. Trinity offered him the requisite cred.

The second, not entirely unrelated, theory is psychoanalytical: Obama, as the product of a racially-mixed marriage, in which the black father was almost entirely absent, had spent his whole life groping for an authentic identity. Wright offered Obama both the father and the identity he never had.

The problem with both theories is that they don't answer the question of why this particular church, this particular pastor. Yes, Wright was a prominent figure with a large congregation. But surely there were other pastors and churches that fit that profile. And, in retrospect, probably distinctly less controversial ones.

Which is where this fascinating passage from David Mendell's Obama biography comes in:

"Wright earned bachelor's and master's degrees in sacred music from Howard University and initially pursued a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago Divinity School before interrupting his studies to minister full-time. His intellectualism and black militancy put him at odds with some Baptist ministers around Chicago, with whom he often sparred publicly, and he finally accepted a position at Trinity. ...

Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community. Obama first noticed the church because Wright had placed a "Free Africa" sign out front to protest continuing apartheid. The liberal, Columbia-educated Obama was attracted to Wright's cerebral and inclusive nature, as opposed to the more socially conservative and less educated ministers around Chicago. Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene. "Trying to hold a conversation with a guy like Barack, and him trying to hold a conversation with some ministers, it's like you are dating someone and she wants to talk to you about Rosie and what she saw on Oprah, and that's it," Wright explained. "But here I was, able to stay with him lockstep as we moved from topic to topic. . . . He felt comfortable asking me questions that were postmodern, post-Enlightenment and that college-educated and graduate school-trained people wrestle with when it comes to the faith. We talked about race and politics. I was not threatened by those questions." ...

But more than that, Trinity's less doctrinal approach to the Bible intrigued and attracted Obama. "Faith to him is how he sees the human condition," Wright said. "Faith to him is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell. That's just not who Barack is." "

So, if you buy Wright's account--and it rings pretty true to me--it was his intellectualism and social progressivism that won Obama over. Certainly it's hard to imagine that someone like Obama, who came from a progressive, secular background, would have felt genuinely comfortable in a socially conservative, anti-intellectual church. The problem for Obama is that the flip-side of these virtues was a minister with a radical worldview and a penchant for advertising it loudly.

Which, put another way, means that Obama's decision to join Trinity was probably the opposite of cynical. Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls--and he must have noticed them early on--Obama felt most true to himself.

Update: Just to clarify, by "felt most true to himself" I mean "most true to himself as a worshipper." The point is that the pastor who made him feel most welcome as a worshipper probably also made him pretty uncomfortable politically.

IDEALISM ROAD VERSUS REALISM BOULEVARD

"Idealism Road is the shortest way to Reality,"
said the dove to the hawk.

"Are you blind?" said the hawk.
"Don't you know that that road is actually
a tightrope stretched high over the abyss?
One sneeze, a tiny twitch even, is all it takes
to throw you off balance, and then the
next minute you're a grease spot on a street in hell.
Realism Boulevard, my friend, is the way to Reality,
if there is such a thing."

"'If there is such a thing' -- are you
listening to yourself?" said the dove. "It takes
forever to get to Reality on that crowded thoroughfare, alright --
if you still remember that that's where you were
going before you got stuck in standstill traffic
for several thousand lifetimes. Or before you
caught a bullet in a drive-by along the way.
No, thanks, dude, I'll take my chances on the tightrope."

"Tell you what," said the hawk. "Know that expression
'as the crow flies'? Let's ask the crow
which way it takes to Reality."

Okay, said the dove.

"Crow!" the dove and hawk cried in unison. "Crow!
Tell us! Which way's the shortest way to Reality!"

"Caw, caw!" said the crow. "Caw, caw!"

". . . Caw, caw . . .?" said the dove and the hawk.

--Dick Holmes
Thu May 01, 2008
Poetry Chaikhana