Maybe the difference is that Bush’s liberal church, as you describe it, preaches/practices “love” and inclusiveness while Wright, like Mrs. Obama, seems to not care much for America.

Your argument’s best point might be the one you don’t make–that Bush’ relative conservatism seems to indicate his church’s liberal theology didn’t dictate his political views on homosexuality, etc.

This might give some folks some comfort that perhaps Obama won’t hold Wright’s, or his own wife’s, anti-America views.

Correction. If any other preacher who had a prominent member running for president had given such inflammatory remarks in public…..

I have heard, over the 30 years I have served as a Southern Baptist minister, a number of caucasian preachers in completely caucasian congregations make racial remarks about African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups, that were just as inflammatory, if not more so, than those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In fact, considering the entire context of the sermon, and not just the sound byte quotes from Wright, perhaps more inflammatory, certainly calloused, and reflecting the fact that there is virtually not a white American alive who has anywhere close to the understanding of the African American experience in this country necessary to classify Wright’s remarks as inflammatory.

The big difference is that none of them had a prominent member running for the Presidency. And I don’t recall any minister in the church that George W. Bush belongs to being put under anywhere near the scrutiny that Wright has been subjected to. Maybe that’s because Bush scarcely darkened the doorway of a church much before he became President, or becaue evangelical conservatives wanted to bury their heads in the sand about the fact that he belonged to a liberal church that had no problem ordaining gays and lesbians to the ministry, or that he regularly attends a gay-friendly Episcopal church in Washington. The influence (or lack of it) of these social and political views on W should also have been fair game for scrutiny, if this argument is to hold water. The fact that it was not is a clear indication of a right wing media bias regarding Barack Obama.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Wright could preach the gospel without the anti-America social and racial stuff.

He would then deserve protection from undue scrutiny, like the other candidates’ pastors.

As it is, it’s like Wright operates with a big flashing sign on his back that says “Kick Me!”

How can Wright’s sociological and political views be separated from his theology?

How can Wright (or anyone, for that matter) preach the gospel without touching on social or racial “stuff”?

If Wright simply preached the gospel without the social and racial stuff, or other candidates’ religious leaders simply preached whatever doctrine or belief they held, then these well-meaning Baptists would be on target with their declaration.