The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

Posted to: Election 2008, Faith