Well, this has been kinda depressing.
I’m on record as supporting Obama, and continue to support him. But his viability as a candidate is about to hit major midair turbulence, and the question now is how he’ll be able to fly the giant cumbersome machine of his campaign through it.
Look, part of my view of Obama is that he’s a post ’68-er; he grew up on the other side of the shockwave that split American politics, and as a consequence there’s a chance that he can find new frameworks to understand issues and create policies that aren’t entirely driven by the relatively stupid positions taken by my cohort back when we were smoking a lot of pot and working out our anger issues with out parents.
His appeal thus is in part post-racial; he’s someone who isn’t neatly pigeonholed as a ‘black man’ or a ‘Harvard man’ or anything else. As someone who sees himself as a ‘mutt’, and thus as ‘a Californian’, I like that a lot.Sadly, with this we discover that he’s aligned himself – at least in some serious ways – with the worst kind of Afrocentric communities out there.
I’m not shocked that there are African-American preachers who say things like this. But – speaking as someone who probably has spent more time in black churches than any other kind – I know preaching like this isn’t the only kind that exists in black churches, and I know that it doesn’t help black people; and I don’t think it represents values that help America (or the world).
It represents the worst kind of conspiratorial thinking – where 9/11 is a comeuppance, if not an inside job; where the real struggles faced by many black people aren’t structural outcomes of choices by both black and whites but are deliberate; where AIDS is the white man’s way of depopulating Africa.
I’ve written about this a bit:
I know two really bad parents. One is a couple that simply refuses to control their children; they love them totally, and so, they explain, they love everything they do. Unsurprisingly, they are raising two little monsters. The other is a single mother who explains that everything bad in her life is the fault of her child, and that everything he does is wrong. Unsurprisingly, her child is depressed, withdrawn and equally badly damaged.
I’ll define patriotism as ‘love of country’. Both the parents above (all three of them, actually) claim to ‘love’ their children. But to blindly smile and clean up when your child smashes plates on the floor is not an act of love. And blindly smiling and waving flags when your country does something wrong is not an act of patriotism.
But – there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It’s a subtle line, but it exists. And my friend (who is less of a friend because I can’t begin to deal with her fundamentally abusive parenting) is destroying her child. And there are liberals who have adopted an uncritically critical view of America. Who believe it to have been founded in genocide and theft, made wealthy on slave labor and mercantilist expropriation, to be a destroyer of minorities, women, the environment and ultimately they argue, itself.
I’m sorry but their profession of love for America is as hollow to me as that mother’s profession of love for her son. Are those things true’ As facts, they are an incomplete account of this country’s history. As a worldview, they are destructive and self-consuming.
I obviously don’t support those values and beliefs, and bluntly, there is no way that anyone who embodies those values is going to be elected President.
The problem, of course, is that while it’s indicative – it doesn’t tell us what Obama himself believes.
But neither has Obama.
Here’s something from his first statement at Huffpo on Wright:
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
He goes on to explain that 1) he’s never heard anything like this in the church; and 2) gives a history of his association with the church.
He rejects the words that are “at issue”?
You know, that doesn’t it. It reminds me of Zelazny’s ‘Possibly Proper’ prayer:
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.
What Obama needs to do – to make me feel confident in my support of him – is what John Kerry needed, and failed to do. He needs to explain the arc of his beliefs, and how it is that he could sit in a church where outrage and hyperbole seem to be the stuff of conversation, and at the same time embody a politics of unity. How is it that he attends a church that seems to be energized by the politics of ’68 and hopes to lead the country past it?
And how will he make this explanation and do it without alienating the black community who will feel offended? Or without alienating the deeply progressive Democratic base?
I made a comment a while ago:
One of my best friends spent years as a community organizer for parks in New York City. She is a fountain of funny stories and ‘on-the-ground’ political wisdom, and one of her truisms is: dog doo ends all meetings.
That is to say, much like Godwin’s Law, as soon as dog waste is brought up, the meeting is effectively over. The room divides, the tempers get hot, and constructive discussion flies out the window.
I’ll suggest a corollary of this, which is: race ends all Democratic politics.
God, I was hoping we were past that…
The most charitable reading is the “Yglesias take”: that Obama is a cynical politician who used Wright (and Rezko) to establish himself politically in Chicago. Frankly, if he somehow ends up being our next President, I hope this is the situation.
Him trying to claim that he didn’t know about these guys or misread them is far worse: a cynical manipulator I can deal with as President, but not a naive “nonjudgmental” idiot. If he can’t judge someone he knew and worked with in his community activist work for 20 years, how will he deal with A’jad or Putin?
I still hold to my rule: the first nonwhite President will be a moderate Republican who goes to a boring, mainline church. I don’t know his (no, certainly not “her”) last name, but his first name will General. The only exception would be if Jindal runs.
I have a feeling that for good or for ill Obama will be adressing this issue again. Sooner or later his views will leak out of his campaign…
As recently as last week I said I won’t vote for Obama, but that I like him anyway. I cannot say that anymore.
He’s either a cynic (per Yglesias), an idiot for not figuring this out after two decades, or a paranoid racist nutjob.
I suspect Yglesias is correct, but that right there is enough to change my opinion of him forever.
This scandal (and it really is a scandal) strikes right at the heart of what made him appealing to so many people, including me.
Cynic.
But a cynic who at least can find a note that resonates with the current American gestalt.
I forgive a lot for some basics in my Presidential candidates. Obama strikes me as a smart strategic thinker. Getting “blacker” back when he started in Chicago politics was probably both a good strategic and tactical move.
Now we see how well he shifts gears (tactics). So far, not so well, but hey, his competition isn’t so great at it either.
This guy is as good a politician as I have ever seen. The operant word being politician. I predict that this will fade and the teflon will not be damaged.
One underestimates this guy at their own peril, ask Hillary.
File that one next to the theory of spontaneous generation, friend. Wright is the consummate ’68-er ne plus ultra. Can you think of any former Black Panther who is less reconstructed than this guy is? He even makes some Kossacks throw up in their mouths a little, and that takes some doing.
Distance him from Obama as much as you want. Perhaps twenty years of “mentoring” from this vile individual doesn’t make Obama a 68-er, but it certainly doesn’t quality him to be a post-68er.
That was a very true statement a few days ago. But belonging to an outrageously racist church, even if you don’t know the pastor personally – post-racial, c’est NOT. It took some doing to make race an issue, but he has done it. He has done it, not the creepy blond chick.
You understate something that ought never to be understated, ever. Wright is no threat to Jews or to “white America”, but he is utter poison to the black community he pretends to serve. The conspiratorial poison he pours in their faces is a philosophy of despair, powerlessness, and impotent hatred. It is anathema to hope, and anathema to personal responsibility.
Too late. He can’t even perform the radical amputation that would give him a fighting chance. He can’t make up his mind whether to excuse Wright or repudiate him, and everything he says on the subject frankly sounds like a lie. Even when he finally denounced Wright’s comments, he began by saying that Wright led him to Jesus. Except that’s not Jesus, it’s the undead Malcolm X. Too many people will recognize the difference.
Will you admit that you have been attracted to Obama because he represented a potential – unproven, but not spoiled by glaringly contrary facts, either? Now he’s hoist with his own petard for that very reason. He withheld the substance too long, and whatever definition of himself he presents now will never rise above suspicion.
To quote Denny Green, Obama IS who we thought he was. A racist.
Let’s be honest. MOST Black people are racist. Guys like Farrakhan or Wright don’t operate mega-ministries in the Black Community if the Black Community is not ridden with conspiracy theories, “hate Whitey”(tm) and racist and racial ideology all run by a great, morbid fear of assimilation and intermarriage. Ending up like the Nisei or Jews. Can’t have that.
Obama was baptized, married by Wright. He had Wright’s sermons on tape with him at Harvard. Attended his church for twenty years. Has lauded Wright repeatedly. There is a videotape of Wright celebrating 9/11 (which let’s be honest MOST Black people celebrated) in his sermon with Michelle Obama smiling and nodding on camera.
I’m sure there are MORE tapes with Barack Hussein Obama smiling and nodding while Wright says worse than “God Damn America.” A sentiment that Obama agrees with — he won’t wear the flag or even act respectful during the national anthem or pledge of allegiance. He hangs out with terrorists. Acts that now come into focus. He hates Whitey(tm) and the KKK of A.
Those tapes WILL come out.
And it centralizes what the Dem Party stands for: racial separatism and “hate Whitey” Black politics, plus status-seeking rich white yuppies feeling guilty over their wealth and posturing with Che t-shirts, the “thrill” of anti-American radicals.
Barack Hussein Obama proceeded into this campaign KNOWING that he likely is on tape with many of Wright’s “God Damn America” sermons and worse and did nothing about it. HAD he at the start of his campaign instead of having Wright be scheduled (called off due to weather) give the convocation, and private praying with Obama’s family, instead denounced Wright at length and taken him apart like “Maverick” (how I loathe him) does with HIS supporters, he might not have been who we thought he was.
But he is who we thought he was. Let’s not let him off the hook.
AL,
Could you provide a link or two to the specific issue or controversy you’re talking about here? I keep hearing about Wright but so far the links or quotes I’ve seen have been pretty tame. People reference the ‘god damn america’ quote but I think the outrage is a bit overwrought, and it seems like someone has spent a lot of time digging for the most scandal-potent snippets of Wright’s sermons to point at.
I personally have been enormously influenced by a minister who has been very involved in debates within his denomination about homosexual couples and priests. I consider him a mentor even though I think he is totally wrong about homosexuality. My mentor doesn’t spend every church event railing about homosexuality, but you could probably take some 15 second to 2 minute snippets and make it sound like he does. When I run for president can I look forward to hearing about how I hate gays because he was my mentor?
I just haven’t seen enough evidence to agree that Obama attends “a church where outrage and hyperbole seem to be the stuff of conversation”. Or at least enough evidence to belie Obama’s statement on the Huffington Post about the issue.
P
Planter: I agree with you that I wasn’t particularly offended by anything said. But the hyperbolic nature of the speech, especially the discussion of “rich white men”:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563762568462411145&q=rich+white+men&total=340&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5/ will turn off moderate voters in droves. Now, I think he was talking about lobbyists and corporate interests that control the system, but that’s not the way it sounds, and that’s the problem.
On the ‘GD America’ thing, as long as Obama isn’t saying it, i’m basically assured that he doesn’t HATE America, but it will go right into the republican line: most black people and democrats hate america, love terrorism and anything that hurts america and will go out of their to way punish the middle class (see Jim Rockford above).
Until this point, I’ve been very happy with the election so far. I’m still on the fence with Obama at this point, but he’s going to have to prove that he can transcend this (my primary is next month).
“Let’s be honest. MOST Black people are racist.”
Much as if someone had said, “MOST White people are racist”, I would strike the word ‘MOST’ and decapitalize the colorization.
Yes, I’ve met quite a few racist blacks – both informally racist ones in that they wouldn’t associate with white people and who reflexively stand up for anyone who is black, and formally racist ones who have fleshed out religious stands on the inferiority of whites. I had one of them tell me that ‘White people can’t go to heaven because they don’t have a soul.’ There are pulpits in mosques and churches that preach racial hatred for ‘whitey’.
As for Wright’s church, based on my readings at the church website, the associates Wright keeps, and excerpts of the sermons, Wright and his church fully fall into that category.
But I’d never accept that this characterized most of the community. I’ve had too many black friends to believe that. It’s the sort of thing you could only believe if you didn’t have black friends or ever go to black churches. I can link you to any number of large churches whose websites look and read nothing like Wright’s, and who would have none of his ‘Afrocentrism’ garbage (as if ‘Afrocentrism’ was some central truth of the Gospel). Wright isn’t typical.
I’ll say this, having lived in nearly a dozen places around the country, racism is far worse in the North than most of the South. I could perfectly believe that a white person outside of the South has no black friends, in much the same way that I could believe that most white people over the age of 60 in the South have no black friends.
alchemist:
Are you kidding?
If you saw any of the Wright segments that ABC and FOX played over the weekend – which were from DVDs sold by Wright’s church – you would have seen Wright say that America planned Pearl Harbor. Did he mean corporate lobbyists planned Pearl Harbor?
You would have also seen Wright say that the government invented the HIV virus in order to commit genocide against people of color, that we started WWII so we could drop atomic bombs on the Japanese, and that the government is responsible for the drug trade.
Lest this be called “out of context”, it takes little examination to reveal that the context is neo-Marxist liberation theology, and a church that is indistinguishable from the Nation of Islam, preaching hate in the name of Christ instead of Allah. So the context is infinitely worse.
If reasonable people understand that stuff like this is no big deal, then Obama must be lying when he says he vehemently repudiates it. Obama’s future depends on people believing that repudiation. The more the left defends Wright, the more cause people will have to doubt Obama’s prophylactic measures.
Let me make comparison.
This is the mission statement of Wright’s church:
http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm
This is the mission statement of a similarly large and influential church in a different community:
http://www.1stchurch.net/app/w_page.php?id=17&type=section
Notice the differences in tone?
Wright mission statement is not particularly different from a political manifesto.
We get an even clearer picture of the difference in emphasis here:
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
#7 from Jim Rockford at 5:44 am on Mar 17, 2008
*”Let’s be honest. MOST Black people are racist.”*
This is pure, unadulterated filth. I am really quite appalled that Armed Liberal has not addressed it s such. These sort of paranoid ravings do nothing to enhance the reputation of a site I respect and enjoy.
“This is pure, unadulterated filth.”
Actually, if I had to characterize things as such, your responce is pure unadulterated filth. I’d be careful about getting into a shoving match over whose presence does or does not enhance the reputation and enjoyability of this site. You might find yourself being judged by the same standards some day.
It’s quite possible to address Mr. Rockfords statements without unmanly appeals to a higher authority, personal attacks, and inflamatory language.
Unmanly? How amusing? sorry, I stopped taking that sort of bait 40 years ago. As far as my characterization. How would you characterize the lumping of a whole people into a group whose majority is racist.
I am curious what AL, who by everything I have seen in his posts here is a very decent character reacts to statements like this.
I do not mind being judged by the standards by which I judged that remark nor do I think that any decent human being would mind being judged under hose standards. Our country has been at War for over 70 years against people who espoused this sot of prejudice.
TOC: I’m not baiting you with anything. I’m characterizing your first instinct in appealing a dispute. Were you baiting Mr. Rockford when you said, “pure unadulterated filth” and “paranoid ravings”?
“How would you characterize the lumping of a whole people into a group whose majority is racist.”
I believe I characterized such an action as being in this case incorrect.
“I am curious what AL, who by everything I have seen in his posts here is a very decent character reacts to statements like this.”
I can’t speak for AL, but based on what he’s said in the past, I imagine he also thinks Mr. Rockford is incorrect. But I haven’t the least bit of couriousity about how he ‘reacts’, because I do in fact believe him to be a ‘decent character’ and don’t need some sort of validation of that belief. For that matter, I’m not intending to judge AL’s decentness by whether or not he ‘reacts’ to someone else’s comment.
“Our country has been at War for over 70 years against people who espoused this sot of prejudice.”
At War? At War? Quick. Get your gun. There is someone with a politically incorrect opinion about and there is a reasonable suspicion that he might be white.
No, I don’t think so.
Mr. Rockford believes that most blacks are racists. In this, he put himself firmly in the same camp of blacks who believe that most whites are racists. He has become the very thing that so outrages him. I would be happy to demonstrate to him that the truth is otherwise. Mr. Rockford has become the very thing that so outrages him. But I have no intention going to war with him, nor do I think this forum to be a good battleground for anyone’s war. I’ve encountered far too many similar opinions from both black and white people to get much excercised about them now. I’d rather do something about the problem than do something to anyone, which is of course what you are hoping to see when you bring higher authority into the matter. Nor do I think that showing ‘outrage’ or being ‘appalled’ would do much good for him or me. It’s a bad habit to be in. I suspect like Mr. Rockford’s outrage, it would very quickly lead one into being the very thing that they dislike.
TOC- Save yourself the trouble and don’t read Rockford anymore. I try to read everything, but I was literally going to burst a valve. Respond to critiques that you think are worthwhile. Ridiculing things you think are stupid doesn’t work well here.
Glen: Only saw two videos so far. I’m looking online but work internet is VERY slow today. If you give me links, I’ll look up the pearl harbor, 9/11 thing later.
celebrim: your second link doesn’t work. Please put live url’s into the text.
BTW: Look up “John Hagee”:http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=A6CD4967199A42D9B65B1B08851C402B&SiteID=8112722C039B4E508F0AB8552B898895\
; His church has this to say about him:
bq. After actively supporting Israel and the Jewish people for more than 26 years, Pastor Hagee recently established Christians United for Israel, which provides a national association through which every pro—Israel church, para-church organization, ministry or individual in America can speak and act with one voice in support of Israel in matters related to biblical issues. Over 75,000 leaders are currently part of Christians United for Israel.
Can we agree this also sounds more like a political organization and less like a church?
Alchemist: “BTW: Look up John Hagee
…
Can we agree this also sounds more like a political organization and less like a church?”
I don’t know about anyone else, but I could.
I’m also not entirely sure how it is relevant. Is John McCain a 20 member there? If so, then I hope Hagee recieves as much scrutiny as I hope Wright does. Other than that, I’m not seeing how it bears on the discussion.
I tend to think mixing church and politics is a bad thing, even with politics I tend to agree with. However, the discussion isn’t over whether any politics are inappropriate for church (a question I haven’t thought deeply enough over to give a full answer on), but over the particular politics of this particular church where a Presidential candidate has been not only a 20 year member but has claimed a particularly close associate with its pastor.
I personally think you are trying to side track the discussion into “Is the politics of John Hagee defensible?”, as if the defensiblity of John Hagee’s politics would say anything at all about Jeremiah Wright’s or Barack Obama’s politics.
I’m not sure ‘cynic’ is quite the right word, and I’m not sure if that necessarily disqualifies him. The precedent I think of is Harry Truman.
Truman was essentially installed in office by the thoroughly corrupt Pendergast machine, and at one point even courted the KKK for support (which he ultimately decided against). His ties to Pendergast were far, far more troubling than Obama’s to Wright, but, once elected, he was one of the single most scrupulously honest politicians in American history.
This is not to justify Wright, or Obama’s tepid reactions. I’m just saying that there are worse things than cynicism, and we shouldn’t overreact to a politician acting like a politician (even if he tells us he’s not like other politicians. After all, that’s what all politicians say).
Not exactly, (I just used Hagee, because he’s been in the news recently) I’m trying to point out that many religions now operate like political organizations. Groups like the Trinity Broadcasting Network (which includes 700 club), or the “Joel Osteen” ministries, or Jerry Fallwell all push politics as well as religion. All I’m saying is that churches playing politics is becoming more and more common, so don’t be surprised that ‘black’ churches do it too.
But yes, McCain’s connection to John Hagee is less a problem than Obama’s to wright.
I voted for Obama for Senate; still undecided for President. What really stands out to me as one of his current constituents is how little is known about him.
Alchemist: I’d be hesitant to describe “TBN” or “Joel Osteen Ministries” as religions. Let’s just say that we agree that many religious organizations are involved with politics, and likewise we probably agree that this is nothing new in human history.
I am certainly not surprised that black churches are politically active. The role of black churches and ministers in the civil rights movement was for example particularly prominent. The role of churches, religious leaders, and religious groups in the abolutionist movement was likewise prominent. I’m not sure that I agree that churches playing politics is becoming more and more common, but I do think it safe to say that we are paying more attention to it.
However, I think it is safe to say that Obama’s connection to the church isn’t being questioned on the grounds that it is a politically active church. Whether or not we agree on the role of churches and church leaders in politics has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I could perfectly agree with Pastor Wrights right to be civicly involved (and to a large extent do agree he has that right), and yet not approve of Trinity First Church of Christ. Even if I was staunchly for churches being politically active (and I’m not, because I see it as a lesser path), it would not follow that I’d approve of Trinity First Church of Christ.
The problem isn’t that Obama is involved with a politically active church. It’s that the politics espoused by that church are neo-Marxist Afro-Centricism delivered with a healthy dosage of hatred and venom for America and ‘white America’ in particular as long as the usual slate of counterfactual claims, psuedo-scientific theories, and anti-historical conspiracy theories associated with run of the mill Afro-Centricism.
“I voted for Obama for Senate”
Yeah, well what choice did you have?
I have no small measure of respect for Alan Keyes as a person, but even I wouldn’t have voted for some reverse carpet bagger whose yet to show any political talent.
Yeah, there was a good bit of voting against Keyes, but I looked forward to Obama. He was sort of a fluke when the campaigns of the machine guy and the millionare guy collapsed.
The Hagee-Wright comparison is really unjust and any intellectually honest individual can easily determine that there is no “there, there”.
McCain hasn’t been associating with Hagee for 20 plus years, wasn’t married in his church, wasn’t baptized or had his kids baptized by Hagee and hasn’t written a book lifting one of his catchphrases, etc.
Look at what happened to Romney based on his Religion, he pretty much lost the nomination over his mormonsim (I’d say it was a major contributing factor) and nothing the Mormons have done in say the last 20 years comes anywhere near to the level of vileness that Wright has espoused during his entire career.
I’d wager to put a fork in Obama for the general if he indeed does get the nomination. The commercials are far too easy to craft, and you and I all know that somewhere out there is a tape, a picture or a video with Obama sitting at a rally nodding in agreement as Wright waxes unpoeticaly unhinged.
The thing that really strikes me in all of this, is how could someone as politically astute as Team Obama not have seen this coming and have planned for it. Its almost as if they had no idea that people would react negatively to this, or better yet, never thought that the media would bother to report it.
“Can we agree [Christians United for Israel] also sounds more like a political organization and less like a church?”
Is there _anyone_ who denies that CUfI is a political organization, or says that it is a church?
There are many religion-based political organizations: the Moral Majority, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Jewish Defense League, the American Friends Service Committee, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the Christian Coalition, Sojourners, many others. None claim to be _churches_: they do not hold services or appoint clergy.
There are churches which meddle in politics directly, or which embrace a political message.
What is troubling about Rev. Wright is that his message to his flock seems to be that their problems are all the fault of other people. Now I can understand clergy exhorting their followers to stand up for justice and resist oppression. E.g.: Martin Luther King, Martin Niemöller, Desmond Tutu, John Paul II. But they all faced genuine evils. Wright inflames his followers with paranoid fantasies (AIDS is a White Government Plot).
One of the pillars of Christianity is the separation between religion (what is God’s) and politics (what is Caesar’s). His Kingdom is not of this world, he said. Christians’ first priority is supposed to be eternal salvation. Next comes doing right in their own lives. _Then_ comes social reform and social justice, resisting oppression and crusading against evil. Wright seems to put this all backwards.
Wright rants (falsely) that Jesus was black, and that he was killed by “rich white men” (the Romans). Even if it was true, to a real Christian, _that doesn’t matter_. All men are born sinful, all men are guilty, all men are saved through faith in Jesue – because Jesus was God made Man, and died as a man, and thereby atoned for all the sins of the world. No concern of the material world is remotely comparable.
When Wright speaks so, he politicizes Christianity, very dangerously.
Alchemist –
I don’t know what your experience of religion in America is, but if you’re like most Americans it’s either confined to a single church or non-existent. Americans in general don’t like to talk about religion at all, whether they have any or not. So it’s effects are poorly understood, sometimes vastly over-estimated or under-estimated, and false generalizations abound. “Black churches” are the victims of these generalizations no less than conservative evangelicals and traditional Catholics are, thanks in part to some high-profile political Reverends.
I don’t claim expertise here, and I find Comparative Religion as boring as most people find it, but as a lifelong Lutheran from a very non-political church here are some scattered observations.
Back in the late 80s, I was a regular watcher of the 700 Club, and so were a number of my non-religious and liberal friends. The reason was their daily reporting from the Middle East, which was very professional and in-depth. It was vastly superior to anything the networks offered, when the networks offered anything at all. That kind of information was hard to come by on television in those days; the only comparable source was The MacNeil-Lehrer Report.
That would surprise people who assume that Christian broadcasting is all Pentecostal speakin’-on-tongues and homophobia. Christian interest in “The Holy Land” varies widely across denominations, and it has positive and negative effects. To their credit, Falwell and even Robertson helped to push evangelicals from the negative end of the spectrum, towards acknowledgment of the Christian affinity with Judaism.
Wright lives on the negative end of that spectrum, where you find apocalyptic horrors, conspiracies and Da Vinci Code reasoning, replacement theology, and invariably anti-Semitism and racism, black or white. Here are people who believe that the Israelites were not Jews, that Christ was African or “Aryan” – anything but Jewish. And so on. That kind of thing is thankfully much less common than it once was, which makes Wright a pure reactionary.
I could go on at length about the misunderstanding of the separation between church and state – by Christians and non-Christians, liberal and conservative. I’m tempted to bug A.L. for a guest post on the subject.
For now, just accept my assurance that not every black church is a politically-charged mega-church, any more than every evangelical church is.
OBAMA CAN’T BE BELIEVED!
It doesn’t matter whether of not Obama attened a particular sermon or not, Wright has been spewing
his black seperatist, racist, anti-American, pro-Farrakan views for over 20 years!!!
After 20 years of attending the Trinity Church, and choosing racist Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, mentor and advisor, all of a sudden, Obama is outraged by Wright’s remarks and all of a sudden, Obama denounces Wright? Only a fool would believe Obama didn’t know, and didn’t support Wright’s words for 20 years … that’s 20 years! Obama has claimed that he’s the candidate of ‘change you can believe in’ … but his claims of not knowing Wright’s position for 20 years makes Obama unbelievable. His 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright makes Obama’s current denouncements of Wright unbelievable. And, his 20 year involvement with the divisive Wright makes Obama’s call for unity
unbelievable as well. Unfortunately, sometimes people believe what they want to believe, rather than what’s true … and, unfortunately, this is one of those times.
bq. I’m tempted to bug A.L. for a guest post on the subject.
Please do, Glen. Haven’t seen enough from you lately.
Gosh, I would have thought that the anti-Jew sentiment would ratchet up support for Obama, not only for those who agree with the general belief (across the spectrum) but also because of a supportive backlash (“There goes them Jews again. There goes that Israel Lobby. Piling on that poor black man, the only man who can fix America…. What do they think? That he’s a Palestinian?” Etc., etc.
(Welcome to my nightmare….)
#7 from Jim Rockford:
Who’s “we”, white man? I’m shocked. He’s not who I thought he was at all. I didn’t like him anyway because he supports abortion and killing born infants, but I thought I knew who he was. (And I thought he would be a more promising president than Hillary Clinton, assuming a Democrat wins this time, which I expect.) I was wrong.
#7 from Jim Rockford:
Suddenly I’m willing to consider that idea as the most reasonable explanation of what I’m seeing and hearing.
I feel the other shoe has dropped, the first shoe being the O.J. Simpson acquittal, when, like, nine out of ten whites thought O.J. was guilty as all get out, and nine out of ten Blacks thought he was innocent. It’s a different culture. And we’ve seen a revelation of the soul of this culture. It’s very revealing.
It’s shocking and disturbing. It’s the sort of thing that demands a serious rethink.
New facts –> new willingness to consider different ideas. That’s how I feel about it.
bq. “If you’re white, it’s hard to say what you truly think and not upset black people,†the New York Slimes quoted Jack Conehead as saying. Conehead is a professor at Onion Theological Seminary and the father of what is known as white liberation theology.”
What do ya’ll think of that little flyer? Here is what was really said:
bq. “If you’re black, it’s hard to say what you truly think and not upset white people,†the New York Times quoted James Cone as saying. Cone is a professor at Union Theological Seminary and the father of what is known as black liberation theology.”
Just sayin’ is all.
I have only one question for Mr. Cone then. Why in the hell do I give a good g-d damn about what any member of one of these racist organizations thinks? As whites we had the racism indoctrinated out of us over the last 30 years. Through threats and innuendo in the public and private spheres. For this? I am beyond disgusted at what I have seen here and elsewhere excusing the tripe and hate of the supposed ‘liberal’ and tolerant. Where is the real hate? It is pretty open now isn’t it?
“As whites we had the racism indoctrinated out of us over the last 30 years.”
The irony.
That’s plain truth. We can see and hear now what Blacks think, including not just the known crazies that you get with any race, but Barack Obama, who had me fooled. We can see and hear the context for 90% Black support for the obvious murderer O.J. Simpson. And I’m upset. I’m very upset.
There was no way for Mr. Wright to reveal the full truth about what people like him and Barack Obama really think that would not have upset some white people, like me.
James Cone is a truth-teller, there.
Sorry, I think I need to choose my words more carefully. I’m not saying that every church is political, just that political mega-churches are growing in number and power. I’m not anti-religion (and argue against atheists often), just wary of the ‘holier-than-thou’ characters that drink their own brine.
Speaking of holier than thou characters…
“Glenn Greenwald”:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ actually has written a pretty good breakdown at Salon (a little over the top at times but what do you expect?). Here’s the top of his argument:
He talks about how people like Falwell and Robertson (people who believe that 9/11 happened because god frowned on our American Morals) are also routinely consulted by this white house on matters such as Iraq, and working with muslims. Or for example, take McCain ‘s spiritual advisor “Ron Parsley”:http://liberalland.com/2008/03/14/mccains-spiritual-guide-america-founded-to-destroy-islam/ who believes that “America was founded to see Islam destroyed”. Is that not equally nuts?
I’m not saying two rights make a wrong. I’m not saying Obama should get a free pass. Hopefully he’ll deal with this straight on. I am saying that they’re are lots of politically corrected nutzo preachers out there, and it’s strange that we’re only noticing the one nutzo black guy.
Can someone fix my formatting? (I miss the preview button)
Sure thing. Would you like me to delete your follow-up post and this too, while I’m at it?
“…take McCain’s spiritual advisor Ron Parsley”
Errr….
That’s ‘Rod Parsley’.
He’s not McCain’s spiritual advisor. McCain is a Baptist; Ron Parsley is a Pentacaustal. It would be extremely strange that McCain would seek a spiritual advistor outside of the Baptist faith, as the Baptists (like the Catholics) believe that other Christians are living in heresy. For example, Baptists generally refuse to attend or endorse interdemonational rallies with other churches in the community.
McCain attends North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona. Ron Parsley is in Columbus, Ohio and has very little presence outside the Midwest. In fact, I’d never heard of him till moving here. I’ll refrain from saying what I think of.
So far as I know, John McCain had no contact with Ron Parsley prior to running for President, and his only contact with him has been with regard to stumping around Ohio and only in the past few weeks. I doubt that McCain has spent more than a half hour talking with him.
Apparantly there is a two word quote roaming around that McCain said something about Parsley being a ‘spiritual guide’. This is apparantly the story you are repeating. Tellingly, the full context of this quote seems to be missing everywhere, the time and location of the quote is missing most places, and it only appears so far as I can tell in left-wing blogs and only appears as part of a viral ‘such and such blog’ said talking point only in the past week. Note that the quote never is ‘my spiritual guide’ – only ‘spiritual guide’. I’d be really interested to see what the full quote really was, or even if it really existed.
But you keep spreading that meme that Obama’s relationship to Wright is equivalent to McCain’s relationship to Parsley if it makes you feel better.
Geez,
Who’s more anti-American?
Bob Jones University or the Rev. Wright?
I give up!
Obama is the the definition of teflon for anybody to the Left of Attila!
Idiots!
Yes Wright does merit more scrutiny.
For one thing, Obama refers to him as basically his father-figure. He’s been entangled in Wright by his own two books in his own words for more than twenty years.
Obama’s marked silence on racist maunderings and anti-American statements that went on for decades merits the same attention that Bob Jones University merited in 2000 (the subject of Congressional Censure).
If Congress can vote to condemn Bob Jones, the least we can do is examine in detail what Wright has said in the presence of Obama that he agrees with.
Next, we know almost nothing about Obama, while we know about 40 years of information about John McCain. About 20 years of info on Hillary. They are defined, for better or worse. Obama is the audacity of hype. Now revealed to be the Black Klan.
Moving on, we find universal condemnation of Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell when they say something evil, like God punished America with 9/11 for gays.
BUT NO CANDIDATE HAD THEM AS THEIR PASTOR FOR 20 YEARS. Or gave them 22 K last year. Or was married by them. Or had their kids baptized by them. Or attended church regularly for twenty years. Or took their title of their last book from a sermon. Wright through the adult lifetime of Barack Hussein Obama tells us who and what Barack Hussein Obama is.
McCain, Bush, in opportunistic endorsements of guys they’ve met once in their life tell us very little other than a transient political deal forgotten tomorrow.
Lastly, as noted White Evangelical and other Christian leaders have been roundly condemned for the last twenty years for anything out of the mainstream. NONE OF WHICH IS AS RACIST OR OUTRAGEOUS as Wright’s stuff.
After more than two years (Wright has been an issue since 2006) the media has been forced to “notice the crazy black guy” because new media is forcing them to examine why Barack Hussein Obama, who hates the flag so much he won’t wear it or be respectful to it during the national anthem or pledge of allegiance, agrees with “God Damn America!”
I predict Nixonian evasions, lies, half-truths, a good Democratic cloth coat, a little dog named Checkers, and his wife Michelle, struggling along with half a million a year. His pastor’s racism and his agreement will be inoperative at this time.
Mike, no graduate of Bob Jones University could have a chance in hell of getting nominated for President. That’s the rub. Mike Huckabee set the bar for what right-wing evangelicals can do in electoral politics. Even intensely likable right-wing evangelicals.
So let’s compare apples to apples.
A.L.
Celebrim, I appreciate the links at #12, but I don’t draw quite as strong a conclusion as you do about the differences between the two churches to which you linked in #10. Other than that, I think you are spot on in #10. I think Wright’s politics are marginal amongst black Americans, and I can say that a lot more confidently (but sadly) than I would be able to say the same thing about the religious right groups. Actually, I wonder if the attempt to make Wright into an issue will backfire by creating the appearance that conservatives think only they should be allowed to mix religion with politics.
I have had a very hard time finding any video or direct transcripts of Wrights’ sermons that people are so incensed about, but I see a lot of drum-beating at freerepublic, WND, etc. The only video of the Pearl Harbor comments or HIV comments I’ve been able to find was a heavily, heavily edited clip from Hannity and Colmes. Sounds incendiary, the editing leaves me unimpressed that the comments are representative. I don’t think Wright is particularly admirable, either, but I doubt he’s the albatross Republican’s are hoping he is.
Glen, I would be interested to read your proposed guest post, although at the same time I find myself mostly disagreeing with your assessment of Obama’s church or religious background, and especially about dismissing liberation theology as ‘neo-Marxist.’ I read some liberation theology in college, and have read more since then, but I remember in school being disappointed by how overwhelmingly biblical (not economic, which was what I was looking for) the underpinnings to LT are.
Planter –
When Wright appeared on Hannity and Colmes, he demanded to know if Hannity had studied liberation theology. He seemed to think this was a prerequisite to making any judgment about his sermons. In particular he mentioned James Cone, and repeatedly asked Hannity how many of Cone’s books he’d read.
Wright uses “black theology” and “liberation theology” interchangeably, in a very loud voice, but that’s misleading at best. “Wright was more candid when he said:”:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html
That’s liberation theology, which had nothing to do with Cone. (It’s very typical of Sixties radical thinking to lump everything together.) Black theology is about creating a separate black church with its own theology. Liberation theology is Catholic Marxism, plain and simple.
The miseries inflicted on Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Cuba have done nothing to help American blacks, but people like Wright find them inspiring. Just as he finds Kaddafi’s Libya inspiring, even though it is a relic of the Arab COLONIZATION of North Africa. A colonization that killed countless Africans and enslaved countless more, annihilated authentic African religions, and its depredations are going on as we speak …
1) I was in a bad mood last night, and I’ll respond to myself later. I think the singling out of wright is more complicated than just race. (and yes, what’s he’s saying is certainly most of it)
2) still looking for more controversial videos, link if you know where to find them
I’ll be interested to see what Obama has to say in his speech. Sorry, but I just don’t believe he attended the man’s church for twenty years, got married there, had his children baptised there but never had a clue what the man thought about these issues. Seems to me there are three possibilities here: 1) Obama is an idiot (which I don’t believe for a second). 2)Obama largely agrees with Wright (or at least doesn’t disagree enough to leave his church). 3) Best case scenario, Obama was using Wright to further his political career in Chicago. If that’s true, thoug it shows p**s poor judgement. It never occurred to Obama that if he tried for a national office, sooner or later Wright’s views would come out and bite him in the butt? He could easily have left the church after achieving political success and claimed that’s when he fully realized the abhorrent nature of Wright’s views. That’s not the kind of judgement I want in my commander-in-chief.
As for comparisons of Wright to Bob Jones, Falwell, or Robertson and accusations of a double standard, a more accurate analogy would be if McCain for twenty years attended the church of the nutbars who disrupt Iraq war vet funerals with signs that say “God hates fags.” If their pastor had performed his wedding and baptised his children and had even worked in his campaign, then I’d say there was some equivalence.
Shoot, I had an ABC video, and then my link stopped working.
Yeah, it’s pretty bad (comments like the USA of KKK). And it’s bad in a way that’s very divisive to middle class white America (ie a large proportion of voters.)
1) I think part of this is a reminder that race is still a larger issue in America than we like to acknowledge. There is still a lot of prejudiced speech out there, on all sides. However, minorities that practice in hate speech(in any population)will always be more grating to the public than hate speech against minorities.
I’m not saying that whites are racist (or anything of that magnitude). I’m just saying that attacks that appeared to be directed “at you” will always spark a greater reaction than an equally divisive comment directed at “someone else”. This also fits the outrage over liberal/conservative soundbites.
I think this is part of what’s going on.
2) I think part of the problem is that most media have already labeled Robertson/Fallwell etc as looney, and since most of their worst moments were covered years ago, media doesn’t really any need to reair them when these characters reappear.
The media is like that; what happened TODAY over covering a history of crazy comments. So even though Pat Robertson & Wright made equally bad comments at the same time, the recent discovery is much, much worse for Obama than those politically connected to Robertson.
3) I agree that more should be made of Obama’s “spiritual advisor”. However, at this point Obama has also refuted those comments and many in the republican party (McCain excluded) have NEVER separated themselves from comments made by Fallwell/Robertson etc. Yet, they simultaneously used them as consultants on a number of non-related issues. Shouldn’t republicans (such as Bush) also be required to vehemently disagree with abhorrent views of those they consult?
4)(I’m sure many will disagree with me here) I also think networks have become timid about losing Christian viewers. It seems to me that networks have softballed a number of religious figures lately, including the Intelligent Design controversy, or the Joel Osteen 60 minutes interview. I’ve also seen a dramatic surge in “Following the footsteps of Jesus” pieces, which strikes me as an attempt to attract christian viewers. There’s nothing wrong with that, except this also keeps them from directly attacking the worst (& most vocal) of Christian leaders for their worst comments.
anyway, all of this is separate from Obama and his actions (which he is still responsible for). We’ll know more after his speech today.
“I have had a very hard time finding any video or direct transcripts of Wrights’ sermons that people are so incensed about…”
This is precisely what convinces me that they are worse than even what clips we do have suggest.
It is EXTREMELY odd that we don’t have literally days worth of at least audio to listen to to judge Wright’s sermons in context. It would be very difficult to find a large church out there that didn’t make the sermons of its ministers publicly available on its website. When I move to a new area, I fully expect now to be able to do some prelimenary church surfing by going to the websites and listening to a number of sermons. Most large churches today have archives of past sermons in audio form, and have video services where the sermon is either aired directly to local television or the sermon is distributed to shut in’s/long term care facilities/retirement communities through video.
It would be very hard to find a large conservative charismatic minister in a ‘mega-church’ that didn’t have hours and hours of records for us to ponder.
Wright’s website is conspicious in not having archives of past sermons available. Or transcripts. Or video. Or anything else.
“I don’t draw quite as strong a conclusion as you do about the differences between the two churches to which you linked in #10.”
I think if you are yourself charismatic, born again, weekly church attending, and the rest that the differences will be more striking. Particularly striking to me is the lack of quotation of scripture in thier mission statements. Christianity is a literate religion. If you wish to make a claim, evidense of the validity of your claim must be grounded textually. The mainstream black congregation pretty much follows the pattern of – ‘We believe in the Word of God’ (or don’t believe, as the case may be), ‘This is what it says.’, ‘This is what we interpret it to believe’. That’s what you’d expect of a mainstream congregration. They might differ in what they choose to emphasis depending on what they want to believe the text says, but they’ll generally follow that pattern.
The Wright statements of mission and faith are very different. The only quotation in there is an unattributed three word quote – “a chosen people”, given equal weight to what is apparantly a pastoral affirmation “who we are” and “whose we are”. The other citation is an unquoted assertion by W.B. Dubois. For my background, this is startling.
Notice also that the mission statement in the Columbus church includes an affirmation of faith in the traditional form of a creed. If you know something about the ‘Church of God’ this is somewhat startling itself, as ‘Church of God’ is a non-creed denomination – but its not at all startling for a mainstream congregation. No similar traditional form is used by TUCC.
Moreover, notice how the mission statement FCoG is primarily personaal in nation. They are planning to reach individuals personally and save thier souls by preaching and teaching the good news. This is the foundational Christian mission. Any evangelical congregation is going to say the same thing. But the TUCC mission statement is primarily communal in nation.
The other thing that just leaps out at me is the use of the phrase “non-negotiable”. This is an extreme statement. For example, I have a non-negotiable belief in the bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ. It is central to my faith. I have a non-negotiable belief that Jesus Christ was the fully human, fully divine incarnation of God, entering into the world so that God might reconcile us unto himself. It is central to my faith.
TUCC has a non-negotiable “commitment to Africa”. That is central to their faith. TUCC has a commitment to “economic parity”. That one makes you wonder if they read the Acts of the Apostles.
The wierdest thing is that they have “talking points”. Talking points? I can’t imagine any church I’ve ever attended having talking points. The actual talking points are themselves wierd in the same way that the mission statement is wierd. The talking points are not citations of the scriptual basis of thier beliefs. They are all pointers to relatively recent theological developments, and are racially centered. The newness of thier theology, the hand waving of ‘you’ll have to study these deep matters before you can understand’, combined with the comparitive secretness of the sermons, combined with the need for ‘talking points’, just screams ‘cult’ to me. Christianity isn’t a mystery religion, and its not just 40 or 400 years old.
_I feel the other shoe has dropped, the first shoe being the O.J. Simpson acquittal, when, like, nine out of ten whites thought O.J. was guilty as all get out, and nine out of ten Blacks thought he was innocent. It’s a different culture. And we’ve seen a revelation of the soul of this culture. It’s very revealing._
Where did those statistics come from?
This link says 7-10 when he was tried, but much less now.
“WaPo link from this past fall”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602351.html
Sharpton (divisive knucklehead himself) said that many blacks believed he was guilty but were happy to see someone rich (and not white) get away with it…for the first time and to see the system work in a way that is difficult for most poor blacks, ie. blacks who are actually not-guilty, or blacks who are sentenced at a rate differently than whites.
So removing politics for a second….
Look, obviously I’m angry about many things, Wright being the largest part of it. I’ve intentionally avoided choosing candidates, because I prefer issues. I feel like issues can’t cheat on their wives, or take lobbying dollars or be linked to ‘unsavory’ characters.
But sooner or later you do have to choose. I hadn’t made my choice, but I was leaning towards Obama. The ideas he expressed matched many feelings I had.
Now I feel that in order to back my ideas, I have to back Obama, despite the noose he’s wrapped around his neck. Even worse, I feel that Wright will become a cudgel against the entire democratic party.
Isn’t this proof that liberals are anti-american? And I cringe.
Obama made a good speech today. I’m curious how others read it. Wether others will even trust it, or assume that it’s dishonest, and that his heart is closer to Wright than to his claims.
AL: any chance of getting a new post just for that speech?
At work – as soon as I have a chance I’ll listen to it and comment…
Good thread, BTW – thanks to all so far…
A.L.
“Obama made a good speech today. I’m curious how others read it. Wether others will even trust it, or assume that it’s dishonest, and that his heart is closer to Wright than to his claims.”
I’ve glanced at it, and it is interesting, but I won’t be able to say more about it until I leave work.
You can’t trust Obama’s speech today. I just came across this by Victor David Hanson from yesterday. It preemptively deconstructs it.
I was happy to listen to Obama before, now not so much.
Obama lied.
Either he lied last week when he said he hadn’t heard Wright’s rants, or he lied today when he said he was aware of them. More validation for the “cynicism” take, although with a dangerous morsel of “I secretly believe at least a fair amount of this stuff”.
This is not a guy I want leading my country.
Obama:
This is the same tactic he tried out on a Jewish audience just before this storm broke:
Obama believes this will resonate with a white audience, in particular a white Jewish audience, because he believes that it is common for a white family to have an uncle who is no different from Wright, to to attend a church or synagogue that is no different from Wright’s.
Or maybe he doesn’t really believe that. Perhaps he is confident that if no sufficiently incendiary uncle exists, white liberal guilt will supply one. And he expects that white liberals who don’t go to church will be glad to accept his assurance that many (or most, or all) white clergy are like Wright. In any case, he turns the tables and points the finger back in the face of “white America”.
Notice the double purpose that Obama’s ambiguous lawyerly rhetoric serves. When speaking of Wright he talks about “some comments” (out of billions) that “might be considered controversial” by “some people”. This is intended to diminish those comments to insignificance.
But when he applies this ambiguity to whites, the opposite effect is intended. He never literally accuses all those uncles and pastors and rabbis of racism – we are expected to supply the accusation ourselves, and to make it as bad as possible.
Glen: You are jumping out ahead of my post. Way to steal my thunder. 😉
Ummmm, no, I didnt’ interpret it that way at all. I see him as saying that they’re are alot of angry people out there. Many whites are angry about blacks (see Jim Rockford’s comments above) many blacks (probably a much larger percentage) are angry at whites.
I took him as saying that if we ridicule them or ostracize them, no growth can come. They may get pushed to edge of society, but that’s where paranoid groups grow and foster. If you don’t actively deal with the misunderstandings and the hatred, no change will ever come.
I’m a regular old WASP, but I have plenty of friends and family who I have to urge to be quiet on some occassions (including a brilliant, but alcoholic uncle who says some damn incredible things on occasion). And I have friends who I vehemently disagree with, but give me a different perspective on life. However, I’m certainly glad that I (and they) are not public figures whose opinions I have to defend.
So I don’t see him ‘blaming white people’, but I see that argument popping up often in blogs.
David Blue, post #31:
#48 from pedrog:
From nowhere. I was just expressing loosely overwhelming Black support for O.J.’s acquittal, and overwhelming white opinion in the opposite direction. It was a moment in which race was not transcended, the way people have hoped that President Barack Obama would transcend race. Rather, race transcended everything else.
#48 from pedrog:
I guess that’s the conflict between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, which is really a conflict between Black solidarity and non-Black feminist solidarity, in a nutshell. When O. J. Simpson slaughtered Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, what was that?
Blacks solidly took the view that it was nothing to condemn: he was innocent, or it was punishment for a white woman race-mixing with a Black man. A proud Black man stuck it to whitey, first with a knife and then in court, and Blacks supported this. And the same demographic is Barack Obama’s hard core support.
Non-Black feminists would classify this incident differently. It’s male violence against women. People who think like that would be Hillary Clinton supporters.
Nobody gives a damn about the white guy and the Jew of course. Except his own family. Jews are often pretty good about that. (This is not a statistical claim and I cannot cite a source.) If someone did think that Ron Goldman’s blood was as red as anyone else’s in that room, though, I think they would be likely to vote for John McCain. (This is not a statistical claim.)
Where is the transcendence? There was no transcendence in that horrible miscarriage of justice, and there is no transcendence now.
Why?
I look at the sermons of Obama’s long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and I can see and hear why. It’s all there.
Barack Obama has been happily drinking in this mentality for decades.
What a fraud he is, what a liar.
The best reason for Barack Obama to open himself wide to Wright’s influence decade after decade is that this is what he believes, and what his wife believes. If that’s true, it’s pretty bad.
A really bad reason would be: politically, this association was a good thing for Barack Obama in establishing his acceptability among Blacks. That’s an awful statement about how Blacks think in general (though as always with very numerous individual exceptions, just as in the O.J. Simpson case), not just how Barack Obama thinks. I also think it’s a true statement.
Anyway, this is bad. It’s not a petty political embarrassment, it’s a big deal. It’s a shocking moment when we can see things not all of us saw before.
David,
After reading the array of facts and arguments presented in your comment, I can only conclude that we ought to rethink abolition.
Glen Wishard pretty much hit the nail on the head with his 8:48 pm post.
It wasn’t much of a “unity†speech on race so much as it was the usual talking points about how everything that’s wrong with the “black community†is the fault of racism. I was surprised that he didn’t make at least a token reference to things like out-of-wedlock births, substance abuse, the glorification of criminal behavior and denigration of education and “middle class†values like trying to get a good paying job and support your own family rather than going on public assistance. Go through the speech and there is not a single mention of the need to take personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s own actions, just the usual “legacy of Jim Crow†as if racism is why two-thirds of all black children are born out of wedlock.
The fact is that even twenty years ago Jesse Jackson of all people recognized that out of all of the problems black people faced, the biggest threat wasn’t racism, it was their own bad choices or the bad choices of their fellow blacks. Yet over 20 years of progress later after Jesse Jackson declared that more black people have died from “dope than the rope,†Obama managed to – under the pretense of talking about race – avoid any mention of personal responsibility.
Just think about that one for a moment. He could have included whatever he wanted to about how racism still affects some people (in a nation of 300 million, how could it not) but he didn’t mention a single line about the need of individuals to take responsibility for their own actions. He had a chance to say what so many accomplished black Americans have said about the value that life people from poverty and enable them to avoid the problems that plague so many others.
There is simply nothing in his speech for anyone who isn’t on board with the racial spoils system. He might put a kinder, gentler face on it (publicly) but that he couldn’t bring himself to say the things that even Jesse Jackson was willing to acknowledge suggests that his “solutions†to the “issues†he thinks are important are going to consist largely of continuing to punish those people who do take responsibility for themselves and their families in order to continue to bail out those who don’t.
If you don’t actively deal with the misunderstandings and the hatred, no change will ever come.
And this is exactly why he’s in trouble because this is precisely what he is not doing. He had 20 years to actively deal with the misunderstandings and hatred. It hasn’t seemed to bother him in the least until it went national and even now, he still can’t be bothered to explain exactly what he’s not agreeing with.
For all we know he doesn’t agree with the Wright’s proclamations on the type of wine to use with dinner.
The speech wasn’t an explanation or a call for racial reconciliation or an apology or anything else constructive he could have done.
It was some dismissive, narrowly tailored legalese followed by a whole lot of ‘look, rich people’ class warfare stuff.
He didn’t deal with it, he just popped smoke. If the dems have the brains of a flea they’ll follow it up and force him to conclusively deal with the problem NOW, because if they leave it open like this into the general he’s toast.
Mark: we can always rethink whether you’re contributing to the discourse here with snark like that.
There is absolutely no reason why Obama should receive the kind of negative scrutiny he is currently being subjected to on the basis of the comments of another individual.
While McCain is out there confusing Sunni’s and Shia and very likely breaking campaign finance laws that he himself helped write, we are treated to the MSM working themselves up into their usual Anti-Democratic party frenzy over this non-issue. It sickens me to see how much attention they are giving this story amidst all of the other pressing issues that American’s are facing every single day. And you wonder how people like me can claim the MSM is in the pockets of the Republicans??? This completely manufactured and meaningless, and I see that you are all rather enjoying your small part in the feeding frenzy.
Wright is free to speak his mind. This is America. Obama does not agree with Wright all the time, as is the case for any two people inhabiting this planet, and he has said so in no uncertain terms. Obama’s speech, which I read but did not hear, should put the questions about his position to rest. Unless, of course, you thing there are political gains to be made by trying to keep this alive for as long as possible by pretending, like Treefrog, that you didn’t hear Obama say exactly what you wanted to hear him say (seems like the Right wing is always trying to force the Democrats to undergo public self-flagellation and repentance…it’s no mystery why the Religious Right, whose prominent and wealthy preachers routinely spout hatred that far exceeds Wrights and are frequent guests at the White house, are natural allies of the Republicans, is it?)
If you want to question Obama’s sincerity on this, fine, but unless you are willing to apply the same standards to McCain, then this is certain to go over with the American public as simply another hypocritical effort by Republicans to divide Americans and distract them from the disaster they have wrought upon this country in the past 8 years. And I gotta tell you, when the banks come calling for payoff of their notes and people lose their homes while at the same time observing the Republicans use taxpayer dollars to bail out the rich Wall Streeters, they ain’t gonna give a crap about what Wright said.
But knock yourselves out with it anyway….hey, it’s better than arguing about terrorism in Iraq, aint it!!! And its far easier than trying to find reasons to support McCain as an alternative, that’s for sure.
And there I was about to say some positive things about Obama’s speech. Then comes Alan. Alan, you’re an idiot.
Signed, still undecided.
#63 LMFAO!
PD Shaw: I often find that the Democratic faithful present the strongest arguments for voting Republican. Alan is a case in point.
(Likewise, the strongest argument for voting for a Democrat is generally the Republican running against him/her.)
Well, I regret it. Tried to undo “post.” My apologies to Alan.
Really, celebrim, I find it difficult to imagine anything positive to say about your voting behavior and thus have to wonder why you would choose to reveal such irrational motivations . Although quite honestly I couldn’t care less who you vote for or why, but I do find the comment illuminating. Thanks.
Alchemist –
Obviously, Obama’s speech had the desired effect on you. You interpret his dodgy rhetoric in his favor. You even have your own bad uncle.
That’s cool, and you have every right. But I have a right to harbor some pretty sinister suspicions about Obama (see below), not because I think he’s a bad person but because I believe him to be influenced in ways that he does not understand or cannot admit.
You’ll notice that Wright, no matter how out of control he seems, is careful about using the word Jew. He did say that Jewish support for Obama would dry up when they got a load of Wright, but when he rails about 9/11 and HIV and Israel, etc., he does not say Jews.
Those of us who have long experience with conspiracy theories know that they tend to go hand in hand with anti-Semitism, in particular theories about 9/11, government doctors inventing HIV, and collusion with apartheid. Black radicals also take pains to single out Jews as beneficiaries of slavery. It would be remarkable for someone who buys into all of these theories, and who hates Israel to boot, to not believe that Jews are mixed up in it.
So though Wright does not say Jew – not in front of the cameras – Obama has taken pains to single out Jews when defending his relationship with Wright. He played the “I’ll bet you have a racist uncle” tune to a Jewish audience. In the same speech, he told them they had to understand that there was tension between the black and the Jewish communities because of Israel’s ties to apartheid South Africa – as if it were obvious that American Jews were responsible for that.
And in this latest speech, when he suggests that my pastor might be as bad as his pastor is, he quite gratuitously drags rabbis into it. I can’t say I’ve ever heard stories about southern rabbis praising segregation in their synagogues.
I don’t think Obama hates Jews. I think Obama “has issues” with Jews, as the parlance goes. I think he has gotten quite an earful from Wright about them, and while he disdains the medium he has internalized some of the message.
Glen, I do admire the deep insight you appear to have into other people’s behavior. You seem to know better than Obama what he thinks and feels. Amazing.
I think the veneer has been stripped away and reveals Obama as a racist.
Also, Obama’s national politcal career is over.
This guy is a hot potato that an average American will never vote for.
Be careful of the company you keep.
Oh, and if my preacher ever preached that black people were somehow inferior, not only would I disown the person in a heartbeat, I would work my tail off to get the person thrown out of my church.
I do not tolerate racism in any form or fashion.
Jerry
Alan: It’s quite simple. If my pastor had turned out to be a member of the Aryan nation who preached white Christian identity and had a non-negotiable commitment to the German race and who held freaky ideas about HIV being the result of the mingling of the nations, 9/11 being a Jewish trick, and so forth, you wouldn’t excuse my 20 year relationship and ongoing unapologetic friendship and admiration for the man with a pretty speach about how I couldn’t reject the man because it would be the same as rejecting the white community, and how every Jew’s Rabbi has said stuff just as offensive. You wouldn’t buy into my excuse that the the contriversial beliefs that had been presented weren’t really representative of the man, and you wouldn’t
Would you?
Obama gave a good, powerful, smart speach. He says alot of things in it that are true and which need to be said. But all that pretty frosting doesn’t cover up that the speach is ultimately empty, deeply insulting to both blacks and whites, and trying on one hand with its pretence of moral superiority to shove some very tough questions under the rug. And, simultaneously, like a magician doing delicate sleight of hand, tries to redirect to hole conversation by dangling the very class hatred, politics of envy, and neo-Marxism on the audience that is near the core of Wright’s ugly message.
Boiled down to its essence, Obama says that Wright and his critics are both guilty of friendly fire, and that the real enemy that deserves thier ire is the Bourgeoisie. From thense, says Obama comes the clearly justifiable outrage of both Wright and his white critics.
Very pretty words are being used to a very ugly purpose. And the thing is, I don’t think Obama is being the least bit dishonest or cynical. I think he is who he has come off as the whole time – a true believer. It’s just I very much don’t like what he believes in, and don’t think his future really is better for my children.
Continuing along the lines of my comment above, Celebrim, I really don’t care what your reasons (tortured and biased as they seem) are for not supporting Obama, because I’m nearly certain that this was a foregone conclusion from your perspective. But once again, I’m happy to be entertained by the intricate facade of reason that you have constructed to conceal this rather obvious prejudice.
“But once again, I’m happy to be entertained by the intricate facade of reason that you have constructed to conceal this rather obvious prejudice.”
What prejudice would that be?
alan, you’re back but obviously haven’t learned anything. You don’t ‘get’ what this site is about which is argument, not insult, and interesting debate about issues not foot-stomping rage.
I’m positive there’s another site that will suit better.
You’re banned here; future comments by you will vanish.
A.L.
@47 Celebrim: I took the inability to produce more than a handful of quotes as an indication that they don’t have a whole lot of questionable material to rely on and are hoping that the few quips they’ve excerpted will be enough to drive a controversy. I had thought these were all taken from DVD’s distributed by the church. My guess is that he spends most of his time on more ‘standard’ sermon topics that just won’t get the partisans into a froth, but that’s just a guess.
I have been to a reasonably broad range of churches, and I understand your comparison with the other church you linked to. I have decided not to affiliate with more than one church based on what I perceived as an overemphasis on politics. My impression of Wright’s church is that it is aligned as a politically active Social Gospel congregation. I know that this isn’t something that theologically conservative churches would be fond of, but it’s still an important element of the American religious life and to the extent that Wright reflects the Social Gospel tradition I think conservatives aren’t going to get much traction in criticizing him.
To respond to both celebrim and Glen Wishard, I think Wright goes beyond Social Gospel, and I am not defending him or saying I agree with everything he says. My initial comment was more that I don’t see that his actual statements are as damaging as the spin or paraphrasing that conservatives are putting on them. I think both of you have made good points about the politicized portion of his beliefs or teachings. (If he’s actually said that he admires or is inspired by Libya, well then that’s just pants-on-head stupid. I mean, seriously. Pants-on-head. But again, where’s the damn transcript? I’m not taking Hannity’s word for it.) I appreciate Glen’s comments on Liberation theology, and think you’ve pointed out a conflation between liberation theology and black power-style theology that is valid. My observations here stem from my opinion that it is important that we have critics and prophetic voices that point out where we fail to live up to our aspirations, particularly in relation to the least of these. I don’t think Wright is a particularly accurate critical voice, but I’d rather suffer some overwrought criticism than have feeble critics who leave our fallibilities unexposed.
I think an analogy expresses my impression of the racial aspects of this controversy best: a couple is married for 40 years, and for the first 36 years the husband told his wife regularly that he had to work late but was actually having sex with his secretary. For the past four years, he has apparently kept it in his pants. But now…when he actually does work late, or comes home late without a good explanation, his wife maybe raises an eyebrow, wonders what he’s been up to, based on what she now knows about the first 36 years. He continues to flirt with other women, or ogles the waitress whenever they go out to a restaurant. Does anybody think the husband has a right to get indignant about his wife not trusting him, or at least doubting him? Or to treat her as being unreasonable when he is called to task for ogling the waitress? Is it unreasonable for her to wonder if he’s really changed, or if he’s just gotten better at hiding his infidelity? Even if he actually has had a complete change of heart and honestly never wants or intends to cheat on his wife again, the indignation shows a profound lack of ability to put himself in her shoes and really imagine the consequences of his own actions.
We may think it is unhealthy for the wife to hold onto mistrust, but I think it’s a bit much to accuse her of being unreasonable. Also, given his long history of being a putz and his continued putz-reminiscent behavior, he’s hardly the appropriate one to be offering advice about trust to her.
Sorry for the long comment. All I really wanted do tonight was read the Heller transcript…
AL,
“You don’t ‘get’ what this site is about which is argument, not insult, and interesting debate about issues not foot-stomping rage.”
Maybe you missed this one yesterday:
“The idiots who claim that ‘the US invasion of Iraq produced more terrorists’ are so ignorant that it is almost funny.”
I notice that those on the right side get slapped a lot less often—never, in fact — around here. A little more even-handedness in distribution of warnings and punishments is something you might want to consider. Or not.
OK. The speech was made. Let’s call it absolutely awesome. Or whatever.
Can someone please remind me what makes Obama qualified to be POTUS (that is, besides Andrew Sullivan’s enthusiasm).
#77 mark,
A.L. also “missed” your insulting comment #61 in that same thread: “Paul, In #59, did you just cut & paste randomly? Is it some sort of dadaist commentary? Or do you just enjoy typing?”
I don’t see the moderators here demanding a Miss Manners writing style from anyone, just that commenters work toward being a net positive toward having constructive and interesting discussions — rehardless of whether their viewpoint in that discussion is left, right, or otherwise.
If you’re up for a challenge, go try to find, say, 5 comments out of Alan’s entire history at this site that actually contributed something worthwhile to the thread they were posted on (i.e. thoughtful or informative commentary that was not mostly snark, mostly insults, or an effort to derail the thread). I don’t think you’d succeed.