Susan: "Here is another example. Women who do not agree with men, or who do not agree with you, are assumed to need hetersexual intercourse, whether voluntary or not....."

That's not misogyny! People say "you need to get laid" to men ALL THE TIME.

I agree it is offensive and inappropriate, but it sure as hell isn't sexist.

There is a fundamental difference between attacking military targets and specifically targeting civilian targets. The people who won World War II did not win by attacking military targets, they won by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians. Firebombing cities is a war crime that did not get prosecuted.

Granted, it was a war, but we fought it dirty. War is like that, but killing civilians has no honor and is shameful enough where we don't like to think about it. Because we are the "good" guys.

That being said, World War II was the last time we were actually fighting a war to defend our country by any stretch of the imagination. Since then we have not been fighting the good fight - not once.

Joan do you really think you're on the left? Really??? I'd say you're an American liberal but you're definitely not on the left. Your article proves the point, like so many conservatives you cannot withstand a critique of America. You wish Wright would have spoken more about the good that America has done. You're uncomfortable with his focus on the America's past sins. But you should understand that his thesis was a critique of America's past and present problematic actions. There was absolutely no need for him to sing America's praises. We do enough of that, so much so that the American public believes the government can do no wrong. Well up until very recently, they believed that the government wouldn't lie to them and the reasons we went into Iraq were altruistic. If we were all use to hearing hard critiques of our country, if we understood our history perhaps we would have looked at the Bush proposition for war more critically.

Joan, Wright spoke the truth and the truth remains so whether you find it easy to digest or not. If you don't listen and try your best to comprehend, then you do so at your own peril. And we as a country have done so at our own peril. Look at the state of affairs in the US. We were hoodwinked, yet unable to see through the thinly veiled lies because of our "patriotism."

Joan, you say that this more a problem of radicalism than race. I whole heartedly disagree. Firstly, I would disagree that Wright is a radical or that his congregation is radical. This is a clear distortion. Secondly,the media outrage isn't due to radicalism. Radical right wing views do not receive such an outcry,instead they are promoted and widespread though popular media. But I do see that this is still about race, the reaction to Wright may have to do with his oratory style which is so black, so African. Joan, Wright doesn't speak your language, he doesn't speak in soft warm NPR tones, fess up, maybe your liberal self is uncomfortable.

Joan,

Your column seems to be a purposely misleading rhetorical set piece written by a Clinton partisan or a semi-Republican hiding as a self-described "liberal." Mr. Wright is a veteran who served his country honorably and then, as a civilian, took over a failing ministry in a forgotten neighborhood in Chicago. So to continue to paint the man as a wide-eyed radical both unfair and cynical.

I saw both sermons in their entirety on the internet which someone in your position should have done some time ago. (There is this new-fangled website called "YouTube" that you may want to check out).

The one in which he states "God damn America" he talked about the ability of government to change for both the better and the worst. He specifically spoke about George W. Bush and the turn that government took for the worst when he became president, particularly as it concerned the African-American community. He stated that while governments change God does not, that God is a always a God of love, justice and truth. He stated that the United States government is damned when its actions go against the universal and timeless values of love, justice and truth, which at times it has. The core message was that governments err and sometimes countenance horrible things--even here--but that people must continue to stick with the God of love, justice and truth. The role of change and the ability of individuals to affect that change were actually core points of the sermon.

In the "chickens" sermon Mr. Wright was referring to what Ambassador Peck said in an interview on Fox News. He talked about the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred. He stated that as a nation that we must be careful not to seek vengeance in such a way that we punish those who are innocent. He then concluded the sermon talking about witnessing from his hotel room the horrible events after the second airliner struck in New York and that how what was needed on the part of the nation was a moment of reflection.

You state: "Wright preaches a deadly kind of "blame America" politics that many on the left have tried to move away from since the 70s." Well you are wrong on two counts. First, Mr. Wright is not preaching politics and rarely does so. Secondly, as someone who was active during the era, your characterization of liberal politics in the '70s is a lie and was Nixon-era and Reagan-era Republican propaganda. That it is being repeated now by someone supposedly of the political left is depressing.

I remind you that the 1960s and '70s was a period when very real de jure segregation and discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics and women were being confronted and overturned. It was also a period when the de facto effects of legalized discrimination and intimidation were being confronted, particularly in places like Boston's Southie where those "white ethnic groups who also faced WASP prejudice" lived and practiced discrimination on later immigrants and African Americans. Democratically-based revolutions are wrenching but necessary events if this nation is to live up to the ideals expressed in both the Declaration and the Constitution. The current generation benefits from efforts of that revolution, however incomplete.

What is ironic is that in having to deal with this manufactured controversy that Mr. Obama must accept the distorted narrative about Mr. Wright's comments and then speak of "redemption" as if that solves anything. "Redemption" teaches nothing--it just let's us off the hook so we can make the same mistakes again. In the words of William Faulkner, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."