Posts Tagged ‘religious leaders’

Jeremiah Wright Needs to Go Home And Read His Bible

April 29, 2008

Jeremiah Wright, speaking at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP, said, “One of your cities’ political analysts says in print that first just my appearance here in Detroit will be polarizing. Well, I’m not here for political reasons. I am not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate-owned media have made it seem as if I had announced that I’m running to for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I’ve been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I’m not tired yet.”

Jeremiah Wright?  Not political?  Jeremiah Wright?  Running for Jesus?  Wrong and More Wrong. 

Jeremiah Wright claims to be speaking as a Christian pastor.  But let’s look at how Jesus spoke, or how Paul or Peter spoke, and see how radically different Jesus and the men who knew Him spoke about their government.  Jeremiah Wright is clearly NOT speaking in anything resembling their tradition.  Did Jesus rail against the evils of Rome, even once?  No.  Jesus didn’t launch hateful tirades against Pontius Pilate or Ceasar, even as He was being condemned to death by them and by their system of justice.  Did Paul and Peter rail against Rome?  No.  Did they castigate the Roman caesar who would have them both killed?  No.  Did they call upon Christians to become embittered against Roman oppression, or call upon Christians to become bitter and judgmental people because Rome had denied them this benefit or that?  No.  They didn’t.  Nothing of the sort. 

Interestingly, Jesus DID rail against religious leaders who, claiming to know God, in fact were bitter, hateful people who condemned and judged others around them and who greedily enriched themselves at their followers expense.

People rather like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in other  words.

Wright publicly corrected a local Republican politician who called him divisive.  “I am not divisive,” Wright said. “Tell him the word is ‘descriptive’ — I described the conditions in this country. Conditions divide, not my descriptions.”

“I describe the conditions in this country. Conditions divide, not my descriptions. Somebody say “Amen.” If you can’t say “Amen,” you’re too mad, just say “Ouch.””

The problem is that most of his “descriptions” are flat-out lies motivated by flat-out hatred for whites and for America.

When he labeled this country’s attempts to gain some handle on the rampant abuse of crack and the crime it generates as a scheme motivated to incarcerate black men, that was as malicious as it was false.  When he claimed that white America had created the AIDS virus as a genocide against people of color, that was as hateful as it was factually incorrect.  When he characterized America as AmeriKKKa, that was as racist and hateful as it was untrue.  

That aint “speaking truth to power.”  And it sure aint “running for Jesus.”

I am familiar with the “Tuskegee Experiment,” which provides Wright with his grounds for claiming that America created the AIDS virus to kill blacks.  And I realize that it was a medical experiment that was based on incredibly callous and racist attitudes.  Of the 400 black men used like laboratory animals, 128 died from syphillis or related complications, 40 wives had been infected, and 19 children were born with the disease.  But I also realize that this “experiment” – as vile as it was – does not and did not represent the values of the United States of America.  It should be taught as an object lesson in history.  It should not be presented as a depiction of the racist attitudes of Americans today, as Wright presents it.  If we were the sort of people who would favor treating black men in this manner today, I’m thinking we probably wouldn’t be considering a black man for President.

And mind you, the incredibly evil Japanese Unit 731 was directly responsible for 10,000 deaths due to such practices as vivisection of living humans, subjecting living humans to germ and chemical warfare, performing amputations on living humans, submitting living humans to die of slow exposure to cold, etcetera.  And they were responsible for 200,000 more deaths as their experiments bore fatal fruit.  But Jeremiah Wright has labeled America as a hateful warmonger who “nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye” for putting an end to Japan’s barbarity (which, by the way, extended way, way, way beyond Unit 731).  I simply don’t understand the implicit contradiction.   

Wright also attempts to separate himself from politics, but he is political to his very core, just as his black liberation theology is political (as well as Marxist) to its very core.

“It is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church,” he said, to applause.

Only a genuine politician – and a politician of the worst stripe at that – could be so arrogant and so vain as to wrap himself in an entire movement, such that any criticism of himself is tantamount to criticism of the movement.

The great mind of Booker T. Washington recognized that “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.”

I actually have come to believe that Jeremiah Wright does not want Barack Obama to become president.  If “white America” elects him, after all, it would serve as a disproof for all the anger and blame and hatred and charges of racism that Jeremiah Wright has based his career upon.  It would mean that he – and not the United States – is the real hater.