Is Santorum trying to resurrect the Jeremiah Wright debate?

[piece-itpete]

How long is that good for?

Pete

[piece-itpete]

I should eleborate. We built statues to MLK. He lived in the same country as Wright. He never would've taught Wright's poision.

Pete

[whell]

Anyone who dares to speak their mind about matters of faith in this country is labeled a "religious nut job" by the left....unless, of course, they're Democrats.

So Reverend Wright was not a religious nut job, and Obama was not a disciple of a religious nut job. But let Santorum answer a question honestly about his beliefs and all hell breaks loose.

The left is pathetic on this one.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Anyone who dares to speak their mind about matters of faith in this country is labeled a "religious nut job" by the left....unless, of course, they're Democrats.

So Reverend Wright was not a religious nut job, and Obama was not a disciple of a religious nut job. But let Santorum answer a question honestly about his beliefs and all hell breaks loose.

The left is pathetic on this one.

He was an angry man, and angry people speak angry words. Dr. King was a forgiving person but he still spoke out against injustice. So your excusing the treatment of American citizens it what is pathetic.

Neither of these men suggested that they wanted to have control over what a woman can do with her own body, Santorum does.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

He was an angry man, and angry people speak angry words.

On that, we don't disagree. Wright was an angry man with an agenda and filled a church full of like-minded people. He spoke angry words and apparently meant what he said since he repeated those words many times.

That kind of anger can be repulsive to some, and resonant and magnetic to others. The Obamas found it to be resonant and magnetic, and attended that church full of like-minded individuals for years and years. But of course, it doesn't matter, and Obama's not an angry man with a religiously-informed agenda.

Originally Posted by merrylander

Dr. King was a forgiving person but he still spoke out against injustice. So your excusing the treatment of American citizens it what is pathetic.

What are you talking about?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

What are you talking about?

Post #16

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Post #16

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Wright is his own man. An "angry" man, as you've described him. His views are not unique, and such views certainly are not monolithic in the black community. Certainly not all in the black community are as "angry" as Wright.

So how does a criticism of such views tantamount to "excusing treatment" of others? Are those in the black community who disagree with Reverend Wright also excusing treatment?

I'm just not following you at all on this on, Rob.

[piece-itpete]

Fanning the flames does no good! We'll end up like the Balkans, or warring street gangs. King understood this. He sure wouldn't have had his children taught by a, a, a sensationalist pandering hatemonger like Wright.

And that was then. The very affluent development behind me is mixed.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Fanning the flames does no good! We'll end up like the Balkans, or warring street gangs. King understood this. He sure wouldn't have had his children taught by a, a, a sensationalist pandering hatemonger like Wright.

And that was then. The very affluent development behind me is mixed.

Pete

How much of his body of work have you reviewed? Would you know whether that body of work justifies your characterization of him? For that matter, do you deny that any of his sermons are based on the Gospel?

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

"But there are new monsters in America, and I am starting to wonder whether I am to be considered among them: those of the uninvolved and uninformed lives, the bar-raisers, the downright mean ones, the never deserving of respect ones, the Vegas junketeers, the Super Bowl jet setters, the tuition stealers, the faux-Christians who do not pay higher taxes, the too much income makers, the tormenters of autistic children, the polluters, the enemies deserving of punishment, the targets to bring a gun against, the faces to get in front of, the limb-loppers, the tonsil pullers, the fat cats, the corporate jet owners, the one-percenters, the stupidly acting, the not paying their fair sharers, the discriminators on the “way you look,” the alligator raisers and moat builders, the vote deniers, the clingers, the typical-something persons, the hunters of kids at ice cream parlors, the stereotypers and profilers, the cowards, the lazy and soft, the non-spreaders of money, the not-my-people people, the Tea party racists, the not been perfect and mistake makers, the disengaged and the dictating, the not-the-time-to-profiteers, the ones who did not know when to quit making money, and on and on."

Yeah, so? Sounds like a pretty accurate description of the American right to me.

Maybe that's what bothers you the most?

Dave