Well, I was going to ignore it. Then, since it was a reply to a postNice try. Obama listened to this guy wright for 20 years, followed his advised, considered him his spiritual mentor and gave him a prominent role in his campaign. When it became public what kind of person Wright was, Obama tried to put some distance and gave a few lame excuses.
Now, more creative people are proposing that Obama was right all along; Wright is just like Martin L. King (MLK). OK, let's take a closer look. Listen again to Wright's sermons. They are vitriolic and appealing to the worse instinct of his congregation, inciting to violence. And they are clearly racists. Blaming the "white" government for propagating aids among blacks and distributing cocaine.
Let's now revisit the MLK legacy. Being a preacher for mainly poor and segregated people he felt the need to help them. He saw that segregation had to be fought nationwide. He organized marches walking at the front. He confronted authorities and bigots putting his life on the line.
He saw that segregation by color wasn't the only problem. Economic exploitation was as big of an injustice. So he started calling for more equality in all aspects. Not only in the US but in the world at large.
Was during MLK transition from a Black civil rights advocate, to a full fledge anti-militaristic socialist, that he was assassinated. We don't have anybody with the vision and guts of MLK at present.
So obama handlers: Don't even think of running the Wright-MLK comparison. Don't equate "I have a dream" with "I have a nightmare". It will backfire.
I agree that Wright is nowhere near as honorable as MLK, and I doubt anyone thinks he is. At the same time, the particular sound bite that was circulated endlessly by the Right isn't wrong. I remember FOX news presented it by saying "Wright suggested that 9/11 was payback for US foreign policy." This is not radical at all... in fact, it is what Osama Bin Laden constantly says in his little videos. I suppose you could argue that Bin Laden was lying to us in his explanation for why he attacked us, but it would be a moronic argument.
It was simply the tone and language that Wright used which borders on demagoguery, and wasn't something that is likely to bring people together in the spirit of MLK. Of course getting angry isn't a crime, and since after mining through every sermon he ever preached, that was the best they could do, I am not impressed. I haven't seen Wright actually say anything about AIDS, but if he did it would be pretty obnoxious. At the same time, I have heard much more obnoxious things from McCain and his Republican friends.
This is a non-issue. We should talk about serious things.
of mine, I decided to reply back.
After discussing it for 2 paragraph in a completely incoherent manner,
you state "This is a non-issue. We should talk about serious things."
If you think a post is a non-issue and not serious, then don't reply.
I would have thought that was obvious for anybody with any brains.
In my post I was reminding posters that MLK was not only a leader of
the civil rights for Blacks movement, but also an advocate for more
equality for all people. I thought that trying to rescue Wright (and
Obama) using the memory of MLK was an outrage.
This is not serious? You wouldn't know what serious is if it bites you in the ass.