Rev Wright was not totally off base with some of his statements...

[JessieJannie]

A lot of what Rev Wright said although politically incorrect was true. The United States wants to sweep all their bad deeds under the rug and be given a cookie because they finally gave black and other races equal rights. The leaders of this country didn’t just wake up one day and say its wrong what we are doing to all races they aren’t white. No! Men, women, and children died and fought for those rights and this country continues to have a problem with racism and sexism. Have we forgotten that this country was stolen from the Indians and the Mexicans? Who can argue that this country was born on the backs of slaves? Who can argue that women have been and still are thought of as less than men? Who can debate that most figures of authority and power in the majority of businesses or political circles are white men? And I know this one is going to get a lot of you angry but Imp going to say it anyway. I feel nothing but sorrow for all who died on 9/11 but America without a doubt brought it on their selves. Those civilians didn’t deserve it at all lets get that clear; however, any person or animal is only going to take so much before they strike back. Let’s not forget after 9/11 we went and killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq that did not have anything to do with 9/11. So I ask you what makes us better than the people who flew those plans into the World Trade Center.

[Phineas de Romanus]

Yeah, Ron Paul made some good points.

But I just have a problem with Rev. White making political speeches during church. Everyone should talk about politics: a preist, a rabbi, next door neighbour, my best friend three year old cousin, whatever--but during church...just seems odd, and somewhat..."unholy."

I mean, I'm glad Rev. White brought up his points and made his statements (if everyone had the same idea and agreed on the same things, this would be a very stupid country full of Yes Men), but why did he have to do it during church? I guess I'm just use to my preacher reciting Job, asking us to pray for our neighbour Mrs. Jane Doe to be cured from cancer, eat some of that stale bread, and then add a couple of quarters into the collection tin. I'm not at all use to politics being brought up during church--I think that's what angers me about Rev. White (not his views, but that he's expressing his views during church).

Of course, I haven't gone to church in about 8 years, but I do know that my best friends family switched churches because the preist at their old church was incorporating too much politics into their sermon. My friends dad was like: "I hear enough of this political *curse word* watching the news; I don't want to listen to it when I'm trying to pray."

I don't know...I guess it's just cultural.

[QuantumTuba]

The problem is, for so many people, religion is the primary basis of morality, and as politics presents many moral dilemmas, it is reasonable for churches to address these issues. However, I do understand why it could be annoying, and if religion receives tax exempt status, it should probably not operate on a political level.

However, personally, I'm far more annoyed when politicians discuss religion while performing their job. The Founders were quite wise to create the "wall of seperation" between church and state.

[Phineas de Romanus]

I understand religion being the basis of morality (that's why I'm actually an avid supporter of religion); but does politics have to be discussed directly?

I mean, my priest was very good about "discussing" abortion without really discussing abortion. He was a genius when it came to sermon writing. He talked about how "life was precious", "it should be preserved", *quote form the bible: Elvis 6:17*. etc without actually saying the word abortion.

Yeah, politicians talking about religion is very annoying (mostly because I want to hear about what they're going to do to fix health care, Social security, environment, our education system; I do not want to hear about their love for Jesus or how they think going to Temple is great). But American's judge a president on their religion---I mean, Obama for instance: I've heard people say they won't vote for him because they think he's Muslim. And I had this rather mind numbing dicussion about how Presidential candidates would rather say they're Christain than say they're agnostic. (And this is when I wish I wasn't such an avid supporter of religion)

[QuantumTuba]

In a study by the University of Minnesota, around half of Americans claimed they wouldn't vote for an atheist for president. What's really fascinating is that if we check the statistics on America's top intellectuals, particularly in science, we find disproportionate quantities of atheists. These two facts produce a general kakistocratic effect, because in my opinion, intelligence is an admirable quality in a leader, as is sufficient honesty to admit minority religious views.

[Phineas de Romanus]

QT...did you know Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible? I was just shocked by this. Apparently he waited till after his presidency to release the book. Good idea though--I mean, atheists aren't taken kindly to today; I can't imagine what they would have done to Jefferson during his time O.o

(You're statement about Atheists reminded me of the Jefferson Bible...sorry for the randomness and not really relating-to-ness).

[Phineas de Romanus]

I love the Southern Baptists! They deliciously crazy!

Reverend: "...And you gotta watch out for those witches, and demons, and necromancers!..."
Me to my sister: *finally coming out of my boredom induced coma* *giggle* "Did he just say 'withces, demons, and necromancers?"
My sister: *a much softer giggle* *nods head* "yes"
Me to my sister: "it is 2005, right? Who believes in withces and demons anymore? Necromancers? Seriously? Necromancers?"

*above dialogue: the only thing I remember from my Southern Baptist one time church experience*

[ariana tosume]

No I agree with you. Church was separated from state,so why should state still contaminate church? Politics in a sermon is inapropriate, and drives people away.

[QuantumTuba]

Well phrased!

[VT100]

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting we have problems. I think the "this is America, we don't make mistakes" attitude has been pretty much destroyed by the current president. So if nothing else, we can thank him for that.

[QuantumTuba]

"any person or animal is only going to take so much before they strike back."

As someone who has been thoroughly persuaded by Noam Chomsky's logic, I agree that the United States, particularly the CIA, engages in illegitimate actions that could even constitute terrorism. However, it is erroneous to assume that 9/11 was a retaliation against these policies. We directly funded Al Qaeda, it's not as though our international terrorism was ever used against them. The reasoning used by the hijackers was not political, but rather virulently religious. Jihadists perceive the West as a bastion of immorality due to our rejection of their draconian puritanism. In other words, they would prefer that we not only think that women our less than men, but that they do not even deserve to be compared to men, and are more akin to dogs. While a retaliation against our nation is arguably justified (I wouldn't agree with such an argument, but the Nicaraguans would have a decent case, among others), the 9/11 attacks were not a retaliation. They were acts of violent religious fanaticism. To conflate jihadist ideologues with oppressed resistors instead of puritanical reactionaries is a big mistake, one which I am quite glad intellectuals such as Chomsky have not made. Ironically, they have received significant criticism for making it, so if you can find an article where Chomsky, or even Zinn or another left intellectual, makes this error, post a link.

[Phineas de Romanus]

It's both: the tapes claim that we as American's are sinful and immoral because (when you boil it all down) we don't follow their religion or way of life; they find us evil (or bad) because we support Israel. They also claim a ton of other things phrased differently each time. They (the "terrorists") say many things just to keep the hate agianst America fresh. I mean, an old and steady argument is nice, but you gotta add something new every so once in a while--stir up some more hatred. I know our (U.S.) news is good at doing that.

And having (or claiming to have) multiple "reasons" for attacking the U.S. is advantageous; in fact, it's a very advantageous to have more "reasons" to attack a country...that way you can go "See, look how horrible that country is, I have 80 reasons. Feel at least a little sympathy, I do have 80 reasons as to why they're horrible and deserver it. " Verse if you had just one reason, people wouldn't be as sympathetic...and your followers might not be as supportive).

[QuantumTuba]

Oh, I had forgotten about that. You are correct that our policy on Israel is probably a major factor here. There is a reason the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel.

However, on Israeli policy, religion's insidious influence also emerges. For instance, the American Right supports Israel partially because of their Judeo-Christian dogmatism, while the Islamic Right opposes Israel, in part because of the war crimes, but also due to an unjustified, theologically based anti-Semitism. It is very problematic when legitimate greivances merge with superstitious bullshit in a juxtaposed stew of anger.

Also, and I would be quite willing to receive information on this, but weren't those involved in the 9/11 conspiracy primarily from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? As these were both US client states that were not attacked by Israel (to my knowledge, again, willing to be disproven), I find it interesting that they were so upset by the Israeli/Palestinaen conflict. This is a fascinating discussion, keep it going.