Debra. Thank you for this article. As I have watched this Wright "controversy" unfold, I asked myself many of the same questions. While I am still deeply concerned about some of Wright's statements (i.e. implying that the government spread the AIDS epidemic in the Black community) it still bothers me that his message, and more importantly, the ideas behind that message have been summarily dismissed.

Malcolm X once said that Christianity is the White Man's religion. Now, I don't know much else about that quote or the complete context in which he was making it, but it has undeniable truth. Christianity was used to justify colonialism and slavery. And during slavery, and post slavery, many of the Black churches would preach about being humble and patient, and waiting it out until Blacks received their ultimate reward in Heaven despite the Hell that they were living through here on earth. That's crazy to me. I guess because I am far removed from those times I can look back and have a flippant attitude, but humility and humbleness in the face of humiliation and degredation, is not the medicine I need.

So that brings me back to Wright. I too read that article in the New Yorker. And I have also watched some of the sermons by Rev. Wright and the new Pastor, Rev. Otis III (?). Based on some of the things I have seen and heard, Rev. Wright wanted to focus his message on uplifting the Black community and celebrating our African traditions and culture. He has also talked about self-reliance, personal responsibility, and self-evaluation. And as Hannity and others have yacked on about, the Church also emphasizes and focuses on Black institutions that are suffering right now such as the Black family. From that, people have dismissed him as racist, or a black supremacist. But I think the more important question is, why is it wrong to give Black people a sense of hope and pride in themselves and their culture? How can people, on one hand, criticize Black people for not taking enough responsibility to empower their communities, but when there is a Pastor talking about doing just that, call him a racist, and compare him to David Duke? Why is it wrong to speak out about the racism that still plagues this country (although, I do think that more complexity is needed in that discussion, i.e. you can't blame White people for everything; I would also appreciate it if the Black church would focus on sexism, homophobia, and anti-semitism as well)? How does this translate into "hating" your country?

My fear is that, some are too fargone for this discussion.

ahh, Debra you are now entering the state of secular humanism enlightenment on why religiousity and per capita income put us Americans somewhere in left field compared to the rest of the planet. After digging around as to why we are in left field I looked at the dollar bill and it said in god we trust. Suddenly, I realized that, yup, indeed our biblical myths are indeed based on the properity gospel interpretation versus some king james or whatnot version. This interpretation is what drives the whole doggone political system. Scary. ahh, Obama was so perfect except for not being like his mother where, it seems, god was not an issue for her. Basically, agnostic and secular and yet very much into doing good, it seems. Realistically, if he were secular he would not stand a chance in this great nations leadership. Either way, his mothers nomadic lifestyle made him ground himself in Michelle's rootedness in Chicago. In essence, he created his identity as being black even though he was not quite black. After all, genetically, he is white and not quite white. Maybe, one day we will have a MLK type secular humanist rise out of our god based nation state and lead us, so to speak, to the promised land (whoops, no one actually promised this land to any of us. We just evolved).

You Crackers need to watch Pastor Manning on YouTube to really understand this situation. He was down for the struggle and God changed him while in prison. He did not go to them Ivy schools, but the street schools.

I'm an atheist and look at religion from the point of view of 'what kind' of religion do we have here?

Is it the religion of people who are so bummed out they need something? (Marx's opiate...) Or is it the relgion of people who have everything or want everything material? (Most white religions, and a few black...)

Or religions that are based on oppressing someone else (many fundamentalism's and their hatred of women.)

Wright doesn't bother me a bit, because he's from the first tradition, and he's making sure the 'opiate' part isn't really working that well!

"Christianity justified slavery!" Debbie dear, you are wrong. It was all those good Christians in the north that had their protests and etc against slavery and their young boys who died in the Civil war singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic(of course many Confederate Churches supported the institutions of their country) I suggest that you go to the Methodist web site and read about these things. I know that you seem to hate Christ and Christians for whatever reason, but please put that aside and get the facts correct. This may give you blog more creditability.

Hy Mother Jones,

How come this J. Jackson gets to write..

"You Crackers need to "

and you don't sensor his obvious racial remarks..? Is it becuase it is aginst "Whitey"..? You people suck, since i KNOW that if i used the "N" word it would be gone in a second...!!! HUH..? Is it that you are soooooo wacked that you think it is ok for the blacks to enrage us white people, but the whites can't say words anymore..? SO much for F**king free speech...

BIll..

Bill, did you actually check out Pastor Manning on YouTube? Before you mouth off, you should check it out.
By the way, "Cracker" is acceptable, "White Cracker" is not. Ever hear of "Georgia Crackers"? The “Cracker Party” was a Democratic Party political machine that dominated city politics in Augusta, Georgia for over half of the 20th century.

Cracker usually means 'white', so it is an insult. Red neck is an insult too. So is 'white trash.' Of course, I am sure Bill Nigh has another agenda...

The Civil War featured religion on both sides. The Bible thumpers in the South used the quote about "Hamm" to justify slavery. The abolitionists in the North who were religious, like John Brown, cited from a different part of the Bible. Which only goes to show you, the Bible is a fun-house mirror, and not the word of "God."

But historically, the South prior to the Civil War was NOT religion-ridden. It was only after the war, and the religious justifications for that planter way of life, that religion and the Preachers were used to culturally control the southern white (and black) population. Still working to this day.

It is no accident that the Klan had a burning cross as their symbol.

In his Philadelphia address on race, Sen. Obama identified as a root cause of white resentment affirmative action -- the punishing of white working- and middle-class folks for sins they did not commit:

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race," said Barack. "As far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything. ... So when they ... hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time."

On this issue, Barack seemed to have nailed it.

But then he revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited.

White resentments, said Barack, "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. ... Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."

What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument.

Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground?

Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack's moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?

Barack needs to reread the Lord's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.

That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.

Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.

Paradoxically, America's greatest warrior for equal justice under law and an end to reverse racism is, like Barack, a man of mixed ancestry. He is Ward Connerly. And his life's mission is to drive through reverse discrimination the same stake America drove through segregation.

And when one considers that the GOP establishment has often fled Connerly's cause and campaigns, his record of achievement is remarkable.

Connerly was chief engineer of CCRI, the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action based on ethnicity, race or gender in all public institutions of America's most populous state. Two years later, Connerly racked up a second victory in Washington.

In 2006, Connerly went to Michigan to overturn an affirmative action policy that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan, though she had superior grades and performance records than many minority students admitted. The Michigan proposition also carried and has been upheld by the courts.

One U.S. senator, however, taped an ad denouncing Connerly's Proposition 2 in Michigan and endorsed affirmative action for minorities and women. That senator was Barack Obama.

Comes now the big test. Connerly is gathering signatures to place on the ballots in Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri -- the latter two crucial swing states -- propositions to outlaw all racial, gender and ethnic preferences. Voting would be the same day as the presidential election.

"Race preferences are on the way out," declares Connerly.

Now that our national conversation is underway, Barack should be asked to explain why discrimination against whites is good public policy, while discrimination against blacks explains the rants of the Rev. Wright.

America is headed for a day, a few decades off, when there will be no racial majority, only a collection of minorities. When that day arrives, if some races and ethnic groups may be preferred because of where their ancestors came from, while others can be held back because their ancestors came from Europe, America will become the Balkans writ large.

Folks need to be able to separate the true friends of racial justice from the phonies who believe with the pigs on Orwell's Animal Farm -- that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."