No one knows better than the African American as a whole that the brochure of America is better than the reality. Yet the consequence of the black church to the welfare of the African american human condition are not apparent to African americans as a whole. However, for enlightenment, it only needs to be asked “is the African American condition well today?” And then ask “What has been the institution or device African Americans have utilized to bring forth recovery, healing, and wellness in their community as a whole since being brought to the Americas and later implementation of the 13th amendment to the US constitution?” History will show it is the teachings of the church and more recent the mosque too. Since most African americans will admit their condition is not well(i.e. economically, legally, educationally, medically, spiritually), it only follows that the all the religious institutions used to bring wellness to this community of peoples has failed. And when a solution for repair is a time tested failure, it is time to try something else.

Why African American Christians Believe in their Oppressors Religion

While fruitlessly scouring the banks of the Potomac river for the mythical beast known as Robust Congressional Oversight, our eyes were drawn by the light of an eleven star constellation often hidden in the night and fog of post-constitutional America. Behind the clouds of official secrecy the judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) cast their invisible light onto the lives of the entire global family, illuminating our every word for the watchful generals and vengeful angels of the national security state.

The President, while defending the NSA's varied and all-encompassing spy program, justifies the practices by claiming that judicial review legalizes them. Few people are familiar with this court, its makeup and operations, or the scope of its authority. The evidence it sees is classified and unchallenged. The decisions it makes are state secrets. It is obfuscation to term this courts function review and even greater obfuscation to pretend that it is a neutral guardian of human rights.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the famous March on Washington — Aug. 28 — Americans will recall Dr. King’s famous “dream”; many can recite entire passages of his historic address.

But it’s worth recalling the full meaning of that dream. The March on Washington was a march for justice. And the Civil Rights Movement transformed the country — gaining equal access to public accommodations, outlawing racial discrimination in employment, securing and protecting the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act.

But the 1963 March was titled “March on Washinton for Jobs and Freedom.” Economic opportunity was at its center. As a key organizer of the march, A. Philip Randolph, president of the Negro American Labor Council, put it:

“We have no future in a society in which 6 million black and white people are unemployed and millions more live in poverty. Nor is the goal of our civil rights revolution merely the passage of civil rights legislation. Yes, we want all public accommodations open to all citizens, but those accommodations will mean little to those who cannot afford to use them.”

I sat in the courtroom all day on Wednesday as Bradley Manning's trial wound its way to a tragic and demoralizing conclusion. I wanted to hear Eugene Debs, and instead I was trapped there, watching Socrates reach for the hemlock and gulp it down. Just a few minutes in and I wanted to scream or shout.

I don't blame Bradley Manning for apologizing for his actions and effectively begging for the court's mercy. He's on trial in a system rigged against him. The commander in chief declared him guilty long ago. He's been convicted. The judge has been offered a promotion. The prosecution has been given a playing field slanted steeply in its favor. Why should Manning not follow the only advice anyone's ever given him and seek to minimize his sentence? Maybe he actually believes that what he did was wrong. But -- wow -- does it make for some perverse palaver in the courtroom.

This was the sentencing phase of the trial, but there was no discussion of what good or harm might come of a greater or lesser sentence, in terms of deterrence or restitution or prevention or any other goal. That's one thing I wanted to scream at various points in the proceedings.

The headquarters of the Nobel Committee is in downtown Oslo on a street named after Henrik Ibsen, whose play “An Enemy of the People” has remained as current as dawn light falling on the Nobel building and then, hours later, on a Fort Meade courtroom where Bradley Manning's trial enters a new stage -- defense testimony in the sentencing phase.

Ibsen’s play tells of mendacity and greed in high places: dangerous threats to public health. You might call the protagonist a whistleblower. He's a physician who can't pretend that he hasn't seen evidence; he rejects all the pleas and threats to stay quiet, to keep secret what the public has a right to know. He could be content to take an easy way, to let others suffer and die. But he refuses to just follow orders. He will save lives. There will be some dire consequences for him.