And this quote from Holly continues to amaze me: “Mr. Bagdadi may have said it but Pastor Wright would not have printed it in his own newsletter on his own page if he didn't whole-heartedly agree with it.”

It's stunning what politics can do to people.

There should be a bar of 'unacceptable' beyond which we need not parse out gradations.

I agree with Holly, that in some areas, Jews are disproportionally criticized. That follows a period where Israel was never criticized, not even seriously examined.
It enjoyed tremendous, unquesitoning support on the basis of faith in their need for a homeland,, pure and simple. They were the heroes in American consciousness.

People are incredibly ficklle and can turn on a dime from idolaization to unreasobale attacks.

The situation with racism is different in that blacks never enjoyed a period in the sunshine of being seen as heroes. Every advance was achieved in the face of tremendous opposition and attacks. No black man can claim a grandmother who imigrated here and could blend in by virue of her skin color.

Rather than seeing this a a competition, I would hope that we can simply see the two groups as being different, with a different historical experience. Their emotions also arise from different experiences.

I would also hope that we can denounce both racism and anti-semitsim without needing to choose favorites.

As a pastor, I can tell you that no comments would appear on “the pastor's page” of our church's newsletter with which I was not in full accord. Wright's inclusion of antisemitic articles on his page constitutes and endorsement of antisemitism, as does the recognition of Louis Farrakhan with a “lifetime achievement award.” To those who say that the award came from Trinity UCC, I would point out that it would not have been given to Farrakhan without Wright's active support. I stand by my belief that Wright has, more than once, expressed antisemitic sentiments.

As to most pastors being closed-minded, Holly, I can only say that this has not been my experience. I think it's fair to expect that pastors will have fixed opinions on core matters they believe to have been addressed by God, in other words, on matters relating to salvation. These are called salvific. On all other such matters–what the theologians call adiaphora, most pastors I know not only accept, but express, diverse opinions. I will grant that the pastors with the biggest mouths and the largest audiences tend to be legalists who accept no dissension. Easy answers always more adherents.

Finally, though I think that the condemnations of Israel embraced by Wright reflect antisemitism, I don't believe that criticisms of Israel are necessarily antisemitic. Israel is a state with which the US has relations. It has a right to exist within secure borders. It is an ally of the US. It isn't perfect. US and Israeli policy must not mesh on every question, any more than the US and Canada or the US and the UK need to always agree. As a Christian, I do not equate modern Israel with Biblical Israel. I share this simply by way of giving some context to what I say. I am, then, not a knee-jerk supporter of Israel's policies and, in some instances, am quite critical of Israel. But, as I said in my original post, there is no place for antisemitism in Christian discourse. Period.

God bless all our commenters.

Moderately Yours,
Mark

http://elections.jta.org/2008/03/27/wright-isra...

Wright published column claiming Israel worked on ethnic bomb
By Ami Eden on Mar 27, 2008 in Barack Obama, Presidential Race |

[Corrected] In a column published by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his church’s newsletter, Ali Baghdadi, an Arab-American activist, claimed that South Africa and Israel together “worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.”

I still keep waiting for him to resign for the good of the party.

AshenShard: I should have said “many” rather than “most.” I have been told by Christians and ex-Christians that asking questions or disputation was not welcome in their churches and schools.

https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...

Of course, there is always the point that many who believe one group or another have more diversity of opinion are the most narrow of mind.

https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...

I don't care what side of the coin you're on, that's not the way to do things.

Okay, now I know that you are operating with some sort of bias as well.

If you cannot understand why he would print something in his newsletter “on his own page” that he doesn't wholeheartedly agree with, you're also likely to believe that Obama supports all of his Pastor's assertions.

Your best bet would be to go back in “Pastor's Pages” and see what else has been printed. I guarantee that there will be opinions from “the other side” at some point.

==========================================================

From One Issue of Jeremiah Wright's Trinity UCC Newsletter

http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf

Pages 8-11: Grossly-ignorant and slanderous description of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 – the “ethnic bomb” canard is on p. 10 and reads as follows:

“PASTOR’S PAGE

Open Letter to Oprah from Ali Baghdadi on Her Visit to Palestine

I must tell you that Israel was the closest allyto the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.”

I'm almost afraid to read the rest of Wright's newsletter. Either he is grossly naive or else maliciously anti-Semitic. The UCC should defrock Pastor Wright, not praise him. If he is just naive and ill-informed then his judgment is questionable and so is that of his congregants, including Sen. Obama.

https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...

Again, Wright said nothing of the sort. He's made his share of harebrained comments, but this is not one of them.

And while it wasn't true, Ali Baghdadi may have believed it to be so; in the late 90s the London Sunday Times published a report, which was picked up by other publications such as Wired Magazine and The Village Voice, stating that Israel was working on an “ethnic weapon” against Arabs:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/11/...
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9904,ridgeway,...

Also reported in the Village Voice:
“According to the usually reliable Foreign Report, a Jane's publication which provides reports and analysis of international defense issues, Israeli scientists may have employed research conducted by South Africa during the apartheid era. During the 1980s, scientists from that nation were ordered to develop a weapon to target black people— based on pigmentation— that could be spread in beer, maize, or even by vaccination. But they were not successful.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9904,ridgeway,...

I do not know about the South Africa claim, but I do know that Israel's “ethnic bomb” has been debunked. Such is the nature of bias that Ali Baghdadi still believes it, but to those who read such articles and were not around for any follow-up, they may appear quite credible.