The new pastor of Barack Obama's church, Reverend Otis Moss III, made it clear he intends to follow suit of the previous pastor, Reverend Wright, in his claims that Reverend Wright has been 'lynched' by the media and has suffered similarly to what Jesus did at the hands of the Romans.
To compare the two is not only ludicrous, but blasphemous in the minds of many Christians. Jesus never spewed hate and never riled up people against the government or those of other races. The story of the Good Samaritan, and how He handled himself when in the hands of the Romans - even asking Our Father to forgive them, clearly illustrates that Jesus is a man of peace. The same cannot be said of Reverend Wright or his predecessor.
The Holy Day (Easter) set aside for the remembrance of the sacrifice the Savior of the world made for all: black, white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, believer, non-believer, and everyone else - was forgotten in a sermon designed to rile up further animosity and defend the indefensible.
How can anyone call Chicago's United Trinity Church of Christ a church or Christian, for that matter? It sounds more like a political meeting of the black version of the KKK to me. They are certainly not preaching what Jesus did in His time on Earth - which was to love others - including your enemy, and to forgive. His love and His teachings were all-inclusive. I do not see that in a church that spews racism against whites, promotes hate against the government, and makes claims such as, "you picked the wrong folk to mess with", "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian", and making pleas for money to 'defend the church' in 'this time of battle' . . .with no further specifics regarding the allocation of funds given. Jesus never asked for money for Himself or to 'defend' Himself. He asked us to give to the poor and needy. He never proclaimed war on those who did not think as He did or did not agree with Him.
Think Reverend Wright's brand of hate is limited to his congregation? Think again. Rev. McKinney in Seattle wrote in an essay handed out today that Reverend Wright 'represents the best of us'.
If this kind of thinking and hate is representative of 'the best of us' then maybe the rest of the world is correct about us, after all.
I regularly review the top news websites and watch the related videos. I have noted that Bill O'Reilly has, on occasion, pointed out blogs on 'The Huffington Post' that are venomous hate-filled attacks. These particular blogs made statements regarding the hope that certain individuals die horrible deaths (Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been one of the targets of this hate, as has Tony Snow).
When a film crew from the Factor confronted Ms. Huffington about the kind of hate she allows on her site, she began talking about her efforts in taking down offensive comments (comments added to the end of blog posts by anyone in the general public), rather than address the question of the hate in the blog posts themselves.
She then went on to bash Mr O'Reilly in her website and again, rambled on about the reader comments rather than answering the question about the bloggers and their posts - which she routinely features on her front page.
The comments from readers on her website regarding her post about the incident were very illuminating. Many were filled with flat out hate for Bill O'Reilly and had no clue to what she was referring - only that it was an opportunity to bash him.
One of the first comments in the list that I saw mentioned that when readers submit comments they have to be approved before they will be posted. While the reader comments was not Mr O'Reilly's issue, the reader who made that comment pointed out, very clearly, that Ms Huffington was LYING. How could it be that hateful comments are 'taken down' when if they go through an approval process before they post, they would not be posted to begin with?
For the record, the hate spewed on The Huffington Post is not just towards republicans and Bill O'Reilly - there was plenty just today towards Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton's campaign has announced they have boycotted The Huffington Post due to all the hate speech on it from its contributors -the bloggers.
I think there is no question that Mr O'Reilly is not the most computer/Internet literate person in the world - he admits openly to this. His own wording may contribute to some confusion. However, for those who are web-savvy, it is very clear what he is talking about - if you listen to the whole message, rather than just jump on one word.
His commentary about the regular hate speech appearing on The Huffington Post including direct quotes, links, and comments from others who do understand the web, have all made it abundantly clear what the issue is and what the point is that he is making.
Shame on Ms Huffington for her lie, and for not bothering to do any research whatsoever into his claim in order to intelligently and directly address it. She took the low road of just bashing him, rather than addressing the issue.
MORE INFO:
Video Clip : The clip of Ms Huffington being asked about allowing hate speech by her bloggers on her website
Text: The post by Ms Huffington regarding her version of events, along with reader comments immediately below.
I have been watching this story unfold with a great deal of interest, and feel it is now time to speak up about something I only saw kind of referenced yesterday - by Bill O'Reilly - coincidentally after I fired off an email to his show mentioning it.
When people seek out a church/religion, generally they are seeking God or a better way to live. They may want answers, comfort, peace, or knowledge. What gets people to stay with a particular church/pastor is that they find what is being espoused is congruent with their particular belief set. If there is a strong conflict between the two, people will leave and seek out other churches/religions/pastors. This is evidenced in many discussions about churches/religions changing their policies/stances on various issues in order to stop congregants from leaving.
The evidence is overwhelming that Reverend Wright has not only preached anti-American venom from the pulpit, but that he has done it multiple times - which illustrates that he was not speaking rashly, but from his deepest set of beliefs. Add to that the continual and repeated references from his own lips regarding how whites hold back/put down/victimize blacks.
Obama attended this church and listened to the ravings of this pastor for TWENTY YEARS. For 20 years, Barack Obama and his wife sat in the church and listened to all the venom spewed by Reverend Wright. For 20 years, they found enough congruence between their own beliefs and what he was preaching to continue to stay - and I would bet, financially support the church/pastor.
Recently, Michelle Obama was accused of making anti-American statements (essentially the same statement reworded on several occasions). Is it any wonder that she would say such things as how ashamed she is of America when shame of, hate for, and the blaming of America is routinely preached in the church she attends?
And what of Obama and his campaign? Can we really have as our leader and representative someone who has, for 20 years, found enough congruence with his own beliefs to continue to attend a church led by Reverend Wright, and whose own wife also makes anti-American statements? How can someone who believes whites are out to get blacks, and that America is an evil and shameful country possibly fairly serve the interests of its citizens?
