|
|
March 14, 2008Obama/Wright: A Pastor is not a communityBarack Obama has made a strong statement of repudiation as regards the extreme sermonizing of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been the subject of much attention, particularly here on the internets. Spake Obama:
You’ll want to read the whole thing and make up your own mind about it. Jay asks is it enough?. For some, yes. For me, yes. For others, nothing ever will be enough. I was in the car today and flipped on Sean Hannity and heard him really carrying on, saying that because Obama “sat in those pews for 20 years,” even if he repudiated Wright it would not be “credible.” That’s baloney, and as a Catholic, Hannity should know better. We Catholics have more than spent our fair share of time listening to priests with whom we disagree. I don’t know how it is with Protestants - maybe their relationships with their pastors are different from ours (I do have a few Protestant friends whose families seem to shift churches whenever a pastor doesn’t 100% reflect their feelings and opinions) - but as someone who has been sitting in a particular pew for over 20 years, I know that a church is more than a pastor; it’s a community. We can say, “well, this priest or preacher doesn’t agree with me all the way - or even “I am ashamed of this priest” - but the community is my home, I love the people and programs and the worship here, so I stay.” Is Hannity suggesting that a politician must review a pastor’s sermons each week and run around denouncing and deserting those preachers who might cause him a little bit of political heat? Wouldn’t that be both extreme behavior and a bit dis-crediting? I think all the “denouncing” and “demanding that denouncements be made” and “denouncing whoever doesn’t denounce” and “disbelieving the denouncing” is beyond absurdist theater - it is an intellectual wasteland of expedient “gotcha-ism” that is utterly shredding our political process. Things are getting out of hand; and I am concerned that some flames are being recklessly fanned in a way that could be very, very detrimental to the country. It seems some - both on the right and on the left - are looking to help along a perfect storm of politics/religion/race which could wreck more than mere political careers. Rather than being horrified by the prospect, some seem almost giddy with anticipation. I denounce them. Wright’s rhetoric is extreme, but it’s just rhetoric. After 9/11 he said “the chickens have come home to roost?” Yeah, well, so did Pat Robertson and - I think -Jimmy Swaggart. Either Ruth or Billy Graham once said “if God doesn’t punish America, he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” For that matter, just last Tuesday, completely buying some badly reported nothingburgers from Rome, Jimmy Swaggart’s Wife announced that Pope Benedict XVI was espousing witchcraft.
How is that for ignorant and inflammatory? And a look at - ferinstance - oh, say the September 2006 issue of her magazine suggests this was no mere blip in her radar. That’s from a nice little Christian middle-aged lady, not from an angry black Christian man who has served in the military of a country that has not always done itself proud in matters of race, and his politics originate stage left, rather than stage right. And don’t kid yourself, “stage” is also an operative word, here. There is a bit of theatricality in all preaching - at least if it is meant to stir. Rev. Wright is a Christian preacher from the left wing. He’s going to preach to left-wing sensibilities, overfocusing on some of the touchier parts of American history (because every nation and history has its darker moments, and it is stupid to pretend otherwise). Some Christian preachers on the right do the same in reverse, glossing over issues that perhaps could stand some constructive criticism, and overfocusing on the shinier pages of history. (The extreme hate-and-madness of the Westboro church goes beyond either example. For all that Wright may piss some off, he is basing a good deal of his stuff on history and perception and his perspective as a black man in America; he is not standing outside of AIDS funerals with signs saying “God hates fags;” he is not out disrupting soldier’s funerals). I wrote yesterday,
If someone wants to defeat Candidate Obama in this election, there are plenty of ways to do it that don’t involve messing with his church and igniting an issue that can flare into a conflagration uncontrollable. You don’t defeat the candidate by scorching the earth, unless you don’t give a damn about the nation and care only for your own voice, your own sensibilities or your own acquisition of power. I say let’s get back to talking about real issues - let’s get back to the real game of politics instead of the secondary game of illusion, misdirection and character assassination, which serves more to run out the clock than to move the ball. Let’s stop - for heaven’s sake let us stop - this endless goosing and gotcha-ing which has become a substitute for substance in this horrid election cycle. We all deserve better than this. I’m sure many will disagree with me - I seem to be out of step with everyone, everywhere, lately - but I really do believe that you don’t destroy a candidate because of his pastor - I think this is a place we don’t want to go. Rich Lowry read a bit of Obama’s book and again, I don’t see anything so awful. “White folks greed?” You don’t have to be black to say that, if you’re on the left - or even on the right, sometimes. Again - Wright is a preacher of the left. The right may not like his message, but he’s not saying much that most extreme leftists - white or black - would not agree with. Obama, let us remember, is (like Hillary) a guy on the left. The folks on the left are entitled to their preacher’s too. Richard Miniter says it much better than I do. H/T Instapundit. Also writing: http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/03/14/obamawright-a-pastor-is-not-a-community/trackback/ 52 Responses to “Obama/Wright: A Pastor is not a community” |
March 14th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Very well said.
As for Hannity, he has always impressed me as being political and a know-it-all before he is Catholic. Perhaps that too is a “stage” act, but it is one that I have little patience for nowadays.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I have to disagree with you.
As a Catholic, at worst, my parish priest has espoused some loopy soft-head lefty social causes that I disagree with.
But never have I heard Father Smith say American was evil, or that “black people were behind all the crime in America”, or that Israel was evil…well you get my point.
And if my parish priest had said something that was anti-American, or racist, I would have walked out without a second thought.
Yet Obama (visit his campaign site to see, in his own words, his close association with The Trinity Church of Christ and the Rev. Wright), a member of this church for 20 was never offended by this message of hate and anti-Americanism?
Of course not, because these are his values. He was comfortable with the message….
March 14th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Anchoress while I applaud your genuine efforts for fairness and realism, I can only agree with in so far as “Obama is no different that any one else on the left, starting with Hillary.” I can even “maybe” agree with you in that a preacher doesn’t make a parish or congregation, but he/she certainly sets a “tone.”
All said, none of those are my big problem with Obama. My problem, as with MANY politicians, including many Catholics, is to defame Jesus by claiming to be “a follower of Christ.” Obama might be glib, but NO ONE who supports infanticide, same sex marriage, and the new age anti-Christ queen Oprah whom he happily has at his side, can be a “follower of Jesus.” Even worse, think about the “corruption of the youth”, he’s bringing with him; many of whom already only know a moral relative way of life. This may be the “most education” many of them ever get on “Christianity.” Obama is a phony as they come; at least according to his “actions” which are anything BUT Christian.
As for Francis Swaggert, she’s disgusting. I’m surprised Bill of the Catholic league wasn’t all over it, but then, he seems to be spending all of his time watching the View, probally leaving him time for anything else.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I’m sorry, but I think your argument that this is just harmless derisive rhetoric loses out once this man brings up that AIDS was developed by the American Government. That and that Obama had to already know about all these statements, unless Wright is lying about what Barack told him when they disinvited him from speaking last year. Obama wasn’t simply someone sitting in the pews while a pastor rambled once and a while. Obama had this man on his campaign. He described him as his spiritual sounding board. He wrote books with titles taken from this man’s speeches.
There’s more to be said, but I think that at least makes my point of view apparent.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
[...] Obama/Wright: A Pastor is not a community | The Anchoress Related PostsObama’s reaction unimpressive in the face of expanded coverage of Pastor remarksObama’s Pastor “God Damn America” — Part of Campaign!Hi, I’m logic! Justice Stevens? No, I don’t know anyone by that name…Daily Quick Hits 2/14/08Chertoff thinks we *might* be backsliding on Homeland Security?Finally, some action against Iran! [...]
March 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Rhetoric it may be, but its still vile. And how exactly is preaching hatred towards other races, religions, and one’s country even vaguely Christian? Michelle Obama’s comment about being proud of her country for the first time (paraphrased) sure make a lot more sense in light of what this preacher was saying. Before, I just thought she was expressing that peculiar chip-on-the-shoulder that so many of the privileged seem to exhibit. Now, she appears to be more in agreement with her preacher than her husband (tkaing him at his word in his repudiation today), about how horrible her country is.
Like Jim Geraghty over at Campaign Spot says, Obama had better hope that he doesn’t show up in and audience reaction shot on any of those DVD’s that the preacher is selling. Hillary will have a field day with that.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
As a Methodist, I think that there is a difference between Protestants and Catholics when it comes to this particular subject. If you disagree with a Pastor to this extent, you change churches. I grew up with a lot of Catholics though, and they seem to stay no matter how much they disagree with their Priest. As for Hannity, for me at least, he is a lot better than O’Reilly or Rush. He probably was speaking with regards to his experience with Protestant friends.
Lindsey
March 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
My dear Anchoress:
Speaking to “left-wing sensibilities”? Even I, orthodox Catholic and straight-ticket Republican-voting conservative, do not believe that the typical possessor of “left-wing sensibilities” is a racist hater or would tolerate one. I know too many personally decent “left-wing” people to believe such. But perhaps you believe that what Wright preaches is not racist hatred?
I have attended, off and on, some local, low-albedo churches and I can attest to the powerful impact of on-target, red-hot rhetoric. I never encountered the kind c–p excreted by Wright and if I had, I would have left that place on the spot, and then shaken its dust from my feet.
There is a difference between being a sinner and being irredeemably steeped in evil. Wright is either incapable of making this distinction, or not willing to.
My previous parish priest was a staunch Democrat and not shy about it, but he never preached anything remotely resembling the garbage that Wright does. He was, and is, a deeply spiritual man and in fact one of the finest pastors I have known. But if he had preached such filth, one of us would have left. And if it had to me, it would not have required 20 years and a blaze of publicity to accomplish my exit.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
One of the points I think I was emphatic about was that this preaching is consistent with extreme left-wing politics - not with your garden-variety Democrat priest. You can go on DU any time of the day or night and see the same sort of stuff being said there. Wright is part of that mold.
And I will say it again: there are PLENTY of good reasons not to vote for Obama. This is not one of them. I don’t think we want to set a precedent that a candidate is responsible for the rhetoric or actions of his pastor or priest.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I am sorry Anchoress as a Catholic I have to disagree. A pastor in a church such as Wright’s is in total control. He answers to nobody. His relationship to his congregation is much different than a Catholic priest’s is to his parish. Many times Protestant churches are based on a cult of personality and do not survive a change of pastor. Many times a pastor in a real sense owns the church.
There is a story of how Saint Francis was approached toward the end of his life to reprimand a priest who was openly cohabitating with a woman. Members of the parish had the saint’s entourage bring him on a stretcher (his stigmata was so pronounced by this point as to make it impossible to walk far) to the church. Francis got up and walked to the priest and knelt before the offending priest. He kissed his hands and cried out to those present that through these hands he was given his savior. He then admonished the priest to stop sinning (it is said he did) and proceeded on his way.
The Catholic system is in part setup to avoid these problems, especially sense the council of Trent.
Our beloved saint was of course correct. The offending father was a sinner, but he was his bishop’s problem. Our priests are sanctified and even with grave sin on their souls they can still provide us our sacraments.
If I had a priest who from the pulpit was spewing hatred and derision I would (and have) gotten up and shown him my backside. I would inform him and my bishop of my concerns. I would still go to that parish because that parish is mine, as Christ is mine, as his Holy Mother is mine. I also show obedience to my church and its bishops. I also would not hesitate to receive sacraments from that priest. In this case father may be an ass, but he is still a priest. When he is an ass I do not have to simply put up with it.
Having said that there is still the question how appropriate it is to talk about his pastor at all. You put it this way…
I must disagree here as well. What is at issue with Wright has nothing to do with religion at all. Wright quite simply is engaging in hate-filled political speech. His collar should not protect him or Obama from the results of that speech. Division and derision are not a “social gospel”; they seek to divide and rule a nation based on victimhood.
Senator Obama stayed under the umbrella this pastor provided as long as it suited him. I won’t judge the state of his or his pastor’s souls. That said we are all taught there are consequences to our words and actions.
I find Sean Hannity had to take at times too.
I so like and admire you Anchoress. This is my first comment here, though I read you often.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
My dear Anchoress:
We are in violent agreement that Sen. Obama is not responsible for what his pastor says. But the point is not so much what his pastor said but rather how Sen. Obama reacted: apparently with, at best, indifference. How else to explain his tolerating this stuff for years?
Wright and the good senator are not family. One can’t really dis-associate from, say, an uncle, but one can, and should, dis-associate oneself from the likes of Wright. The fact that Sen. Obama is only now beginning this, and only after massive negative publicity, leads me to question his judgement and his integrity. Maybe I am just too old-fashioned for the 21st century, but I think judgement and integrity are important in a President.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Anchoress -
I know where you are trying to go with this, but Obama has taken it way beyond simply belonging to this particular church. You might have a case if Wright was a priest assigned to Obama’s particular church for a short time, but that isn’t what we are talking about. Obama has explicitly stated that he looks to Wright for spiritual guidance. I have to agree with others here who stated that they’d gladly walk out of a church where the priest preached anti-Americanism or racism from the pulpit.
You are correct in saying that there are a lot of good reasons not to vote for Obama. Personally, his anti-Americanism is top of the list for me. In my opinion, that stems in part from his association with Wright.
Lindsey
http://www.russelllindsey.blogspot.com
March 14th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
As a slightly lapsed Mormon who believes that prejudice against my faith probably was exploited by one of Mitt Romney’s opponents in this election to ensure his failure to achieve the nomination, I agree with the Anchoress on general principle. I, more than anyone, would like to see where a candidate worships become a complete non-issue under nearly all circumstances. If a Scientologist is qualified to hold office, and has the type of agenda I agree with, he gets my vote over a Mormon whose agenda resembles Nancy Pelosi’s.
However, in the instance of Obama and Wright, we have reached a point where the exception may apply due to what exactly Wright has preached. Wright’s message, if one flipped the black for white, would be almost indistinguishable from that of Richard Butler. At this point, we need to know if Obama buys into this or not.
I do not believe that Obama is responsible for Wright’s comments, and I do not think that many are saying he is. I think that most people are noting that there is a strong disconnect from what Obama himself has spoken in favor of on the campaign trail (i.e., he talks of unity, yet he goes to this church where something very different is preached). It goes down to the question of whether he is saying what he really believes, or he’s just saying what he thinks people want to hear.
That is perfectly legitimate to ask.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I want to be crystal clear here. Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for what Wright says. However, he should be held responsible for his affiliations, especially considering that the POTUS is also commander-on-chief. I don’t want someone with that power to be Anti-American.
Here’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. Worst case scenario and we have another President Clinton or a President Obama, do I have to claim him or her? Remember all of those people saying that Bush “wasn’t their President?”
This may seem petty, but if one of them does become President, I want to create a banner that says exactly that to put on my websites and blogs. I want NOTHING to do with either one of them.
Lindsey
March 14th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I don’t think we want to set a precedent that a candidate is responsible for the rhetoric or actions of his pastor or priest.
It’s repugnant when the left and MSM go digging and fishing for reasons to be offended, and blast the latest silly thing that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or any number of other perceived religious right ministers have to say. It is equally obnoxious when folks on the right start searching for things to get offended about, so that they too can play the victim, regarding something that some religious left minister has said.
Not only is it hypocritical (since the right routinely, and properly, complains when the left and MSM selectively look for outrageous things said by the religious right), and not only is it morally wrong — completely contrary to the charity which we are commanded to show toward others, even our enemies — even our political enemies — but also, nothing good can come of it. This is not a weapon of political warfare that we really and truly want to start using. Like poison gas, it can easily drift back in our direction.
You can bet that, right now, the political war rooms of the left are combing through each and every tiny little thing said by McCain’s pastor Dan Yeary, of the mega-church North Phoenix Baptist Church. And if they can’t find anything that is overtly controversial, they’ll find something ambiguous and twist it around and say it is offensive.
Nothing good can come of this.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:40 am
…nothing good can come of it. This is not a weapon of political warfare that we really and truly want to start using. Like poison gas, it can easily drift back in our direction.
You can bet that, right now, the political war rooms of the left are combing through each and every tiny little thing said by McCain’s pastor Dan Yeary, of the mega-church North Phoenix Baptist Church. And if they can’t find anything that is overtly controversial, they’ll find something ambiguous and twist it around and say it is offensive.
Nothing good can come of this.
THANK YOU Bender - after all the times you and I have so hugely disagreed with each other, I am both shocked and so very grateful that you understand what I am apparently saying so poorly. Well said. Gracias.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:43 am
This may seem petty, but if one of them does become President, I want to create a banner that says exactly that to put on my websites and blogs. I want NOTHING to do with either one of them.
Well…it certainly makes you the equal of those we looked down on in disdain for saying the same thing about Bush in 2000. I can’t imagine you would like that.
And I don’t think it helps the nation, any. The American President is due a certain respect, no matter who, for the office itself.
Perhaps this book and film could not be more timely.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:59 am
As Iceworm (and others above) have pointed out, the issue here is neither “racism,” nor whether Wright’s ravings should be “attributed to” Obama. Rather, the real issue is: what kind of judgment did Obama exercise by remaining a member of Wright’s church (and a part of its “family”) for 20 years while Wright was espousing his lunatic views? (And anyone who believes that (1) the U.S. government created AIDS in order to destroy African-Americans and (2) the U.S. “deserved” the 9/11 attacks is a lunatic. Sorry, but I do not accept the argument that these statements are “taken out of context” and that “you had to be there” in order to understand Wright’s “riffing.” This will no doubt get me branded as a “racist”, but so be it.) The simple fact is, anyone with any common sense would have walked out of that church (and left that congregation) upon hearing (whether first-, second-, or third-hand) Wright’s misguided (to say the least) view of the universe. Yes, I agree with the Anchoress that “racism” is not a reason to not vote for Obama. However, the bad judgment, disingenuousness, and/or credulousness exhibited by Obama are fully sufficient in themselves to disqualify him from being President.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:05 am
How many Christians continued to listen to Robertson and Falwell after they said we deserved the 9/11 attacks? A lot of them did and still do.
I’m not going to keep repeating myself, though. Everyone will believe what they want to believe. I’m simply going to maintain that this is not the way to take someone down.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I am sorry but although I rarely disagree with you, this is most certainly one of the times.
I think I am right in that as a Catholic you are pretty much assigned a parish based on your residence and that then becomes your home church. Protestants are different. We can shop around to find the preacher that fits our needs, speaks to us most closely, etc. In the case of white protestants, the minister is usually a friend, advisor, confidant, one we go to when we need succor and one we go to on Sunday to listen to his or her thoughts. In the case of African American protestants, their minister is all of those things and in most cases also a political advisor and activist. If the current preacher falls down on the job or fails to meet your needs, you go on to another church that does meet your needs.
That brings us to Rev Wright and Senator Obama. Rev Wright married the Obamas and has preached to them for years. He has advised them and has been an activist in their cause and on their side. If he did not speak to their beliefs and fulfill their needs when it came to giving advice, then he would have been dropped years ago. He was not dropped. In fact until his sermons were made available by the media he was a trusted advisor to the campaign. He has just now been dropped/resigned, whatever since the subjects of his sermons have been in the public eye. I do not see that you can just ignore what he said because Obama did not repeat it. He has not changed his views in years and has been preaching the same way for years. The Obamas have been attending this church and listening to these views for years. If the subjects had been so repugnant to them, they would have been gone in a heartbeat long ago. They are still there.
It is for that reason that I disagree with you so vehemently. You cannot have someone as a valued advisor for so long and an integral part of your campaign and then say you never heard them speak what they have preached for years or say that they were your valued advisor and then reject the foundation of that advisor’s belief system. It just does not compute.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Those Christians were and are not in a position to make foreign and military policy in defense of the country. They do not have the button in their control. The core of Robertson and Falwell’s belief system was not tied up in the deserving of the 9/11 attacks and they did not preach that for decades and act on it. Rev Wright’s beliefs are the core of his belief system. He preaches on it incessantly. He is an activist on the subject. It is not quite the same thing.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:13 am
And for MOST of the 20 year Barack was in those pews, he was just a private citizen, not in a position to make foreign and military policy in defense of the country, etc etc.
When you’ve been in a church most of your life, you tend to “not hear” all the stuff that comes your way because you have so many other emotional connections to it.
I’m not making excuses for it; but I can understand it. And for that matter, I am not saying that Obama is qualified for the presidency. I’m saying THIS is not the way to take down a candidate.
We Catholics do often go to the parish in our neighborhood but that’s not a dicta of the church and many do go looking for a liturgy that they find they can connect to (either more traditional or more progressive). I take your point but only to a point. A preacher may be “fire and brimstone” in the pulpit but much more pastoral one-on-one. I think when people make an emotional connection with their pastor (and many Protestant friends tell me they do - almost looking at the pastor as a father figure, and certainly some Catholics, though probably not as many, get emotionally bonded with their priests) then you do not always see or hear the stuff they’re saying - it does not compute on the same level as the intellect.
And it’s why I am very strongly of the opinion that when you start talking about a man and woman and their church, you’re delving into mysteries. You can’t just slap a paper down and say, “this is it and this is all of it.”
But then, we Catholics tend to stupidly see things backwards, or so my email is informing me tonight.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Anchoress: My point is not that there are credulous people in the world (e.g., the “Christians [who] continued to listen to Robertson and Falwell” after they made vile statements similar to Wright’s). The point is: someone who is that credulous (and doesn’t realize it) - i.e., your “Christians” and my Obama - does not qualify for the presidency. (Oh, and by the way, are any of the “Christians” to whom you refer currently running for President? I didn’t think so.)
March 15th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Blockhead, see above.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Anchoress: Let’s try this another way: if John McCain had been attending church services at Pat Robertson’s or Jerry Falwell’s church for 20 years, if McCain said (as Obama has said about Wright) that Robertson/Falwell was like an “uncle” to him, and if McCain said that Robertson/Falwell was his spiritual advisor, would it be your view that McCain was “just a private citizen” during those 20 years, and that those relationships would be of no moment to you? (Just wondering.)
March 15th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Yes, Blockhead, I would, because I think my point is a true one: 20 years in a pew builds a huge attachment, and that attachment, which is spiritual and emotional can become a real stumblingblock to seeing, sometimes, the faults and weaknesses of those you love.
Love is often a stumblingblock. Barack’s father left when he was two. This man has been his father figure since he was a young man. Love is blind.
Good heavens, we see this in marriage, too - and in my case thank God, because my husband overlooks a lot in me, just doesn’t see my faults.
We’re not talking about a business relationship here or a student/teacher relationship which has well-defined boundaries. We’re talking about a shepherd/sheep relationship, (one possibly grounded in a father/son vibe) which is very, very different. I do not think more hysterical and political rage should be applied to this. There are other, better, less destructive ways to take a candidate down.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Anchoress: I am not trying to be combative (really!), but do you believe that those of us who differ with you on this issue are exhibiting “hysterical and political rage”? Look, I am no fan of Hannity or Limbaugh either - what those of us who disagree with you have said (in various ways) is essentially that Obama exhibited a serious lack of good judgment by being blind (whether wittingly or unwittingly) to Wright’s “ideas” and by sticking around for 20 years. I do not find it “destructive” to evaluate a presidential candidate’s ability to make good or bad judgments. I would hate to think that you are classifying those of us who differ with you as being purveyors of “hysterical and political rage.” For us (if I can presume to speak for others), it is a matter of whether this part of Obama’s life (and it does seem to be an important part of his life, by his own admission) tells us something about his qualifications. (For the record, as an irreligious, lapsed Minnesota Lutheran, I have no religious dog in this fight.)
March 15th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Anchoress-
I think we may be assigning Hannity a bit too much credit on this. I wish the GOP was willing to play dirty enough to do something like this, but I think we all know where this came from. The GOP doesn’t have enough friends or resources in the MSM to pull something like this off.
It is somewhat troubling- it would be like tarring a Catholic candidate because a priest in their diocese was a pedophile and got nailed for it.
With that said, more and more of Wright’s rhetoric pops up online, and it’s like watching a series of train wrecks. What has been brought into play is the public scrutiny of radical black churches- and a lot of the rhetoric in many churches (including ones I’ve installed sound systems in) is pretty vicious. It is difficult for me, given the close nature of their relationship, to separate Obama from Wright, and he’s going to have to get out in public and do some serious distancing from Wright. His current attempts at spin are pretty weak.
The bottom line here, as ugly as it is, is that we are seeing the Clinton machine throw up the Hail Mary passes at this moment. She may not be able to make up the deficit on Obama- we’ll see what this does to his polling- but she may be able to render him unelectable. This would put her in position to take the nomination despite being behind in delegates- we’ll have to see at the convention.
Behold her works, ye mighty, and despair… because if she does pull this off, you’ll see one angry, split party, and a truly vicious strategy to take down McCain from the get-go. She’ll have six months to destroy him.
tmi3rd
March 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Anchoress — I admire your desire to understand Obama and have compassion for him. That’s great and if I were interacting with Obama on a personal level, I would aspire to that too.
However, the issue is whether Obama is the best candidate, or even a fit candidate, to be president. If a politician is so blinded by his attachment to a church and hunger for a father, that he can’t stand up and object when his spiritual mentor and father figure is literally screaming, “God damn America,” I don’t think that man is fit to lead America.
At my church when I started to hear Bush bashing, America bashing, and anti-war propagandizing from the pulpit and in the mailing list, I stood up at the meetings and on the mailing list and I objected. Like-minded members of the congregation and I made a stand and eventually that sort of politics was set aside. I’m not anywhere near as powerful or prominent a member of my congregation as Obama is at Trinity United.
If Obama can’t stand up for America in his church, how can he stand up for America in the world? If he can’t lead his own church to a better place, how can he lead America?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I was almost as shocked by the roars of approval from the congregation as I was from Pastor Wright’s rhetoric. The congregation obviously embraces his rhetoric. I think your Catholicity is blinding you to the very real case that Pastor Wright is the Magisterium of Pastor Wright’s church. Anyone who joins that Church joins because the message and the messenger are one. You can’t reject one without rejecting the other.
Has there ever been a more religion-drenched race for the presidency? I don’t know about the Al Smith case or even JFK’s [too young to remember].
March 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Oh my goodness. Anchoress I have read you for years and disagreed with you a few times, but this is the first I have commented. Why do you so stubbornly hold onto this opinion about ‘Barack’? On TV last night I heard him claim he never heard Wright say any of these things. Does that sound plausible to you? Wright’s words are not just rhetoric but racist, separatist, hate America diatribes that charge people up. How can you honestly claim that Obama could be so complacent that perhaps he never ‘heard’ him?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Anchoress, I agree with you in that any President of the United States deserves respect. That is why even though I may be tempted to create a banner, have a countdown clock, etc., I wouldn’t go through with it. The office alone deserves more respect. I wouldn’t be any better than those people on the other side, but that doesn’t take away my anger.
However, my statement above shows you just how angry I am at the far left for their treatment of Bush (although I still can’t understand why he didn’t do more to better his image; then again, who would have given him a fair shake?). I’m tired of feeling as though I don’t have much of a voice in the current discourse to the fact that I am a young conservative woman. It concerns me that steps are being taken to take away the discussion from conservatives of all stripes, especially in schools.
Lindsey
This may seem petty, but if one of them does become President, I want to create a banner that says exactly that to put on my websites and blogs. I want NOTHING to do with either one of them.
Well…it certainly makes you the equal of those we looked down on in disdain for saying the same thing about Bush in 2000. I can’t imagine you would like that.
And I don’t think it helps the nation, any. The American President is due a certain respect, no matter who, for the office itself.
Perhaps this book and film could not be more timely.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Obama calls Pastor Wright’s words “inflammatory and appaling”…
I guess this is supposed to end the controversy: In the handful of years Senator Barack Obama has spent in the national spotlight, his stance toward his pastor has gone from glowing praise to growing distance to — as of…
March 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Anchoress, respectfully, the problem with your reasoning is that that pastor is teaching his community to hate, to be ungrateful, to be discontented in an unprofitable way, to blame everyone and everything except themselves for the problems of their community.
That is a HUGE problem. It reflects in Obama’s writings and in some of the spewings from his wife’s mouth - her discontent and ingratitude are so obvious in spite of a prosperous lifestyle that she and her husband were able to obtain because this is America, and it is still the land of opportunity.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Dear Anchoress, Let me see if I understand your argument here; it is just words, just rhetoric, just angry black folks, just talk talk talk to stir up the congregation and shouldn’t be taken literal, and shouldn’t reflect on someone who is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, because we shouldn’t hold him to a higher standard than the average joe.
When my son was a very young child, I would ground him if he was there when his friends got into trouble. When he was older, I would ground him if he went to a party and booze was present. I would monitor his friends. I would check his pockets. I would weed out people I thought were tilting towards destruction. And I was just a mom, and he was just a kid. Who you know and how they act matters.
Later, when my son would be somewhere and the situation became iffy, he’d leave. And on many a weekend I would suddenly have 10 teenagers appear in my living room. Reason given, they said when Jim left, it was time to go. Enough said.
So a leader of men would have left. Would have taken a stand. Would have either challenged his pastor or found another church.
Just lefty extremists? Oh, well, why didn’t you say so. So we should ignore the America sucks, and I hate America associates because, geez, they are just lefty fringe fools. And if Hannity is pointing this out, reasonable people should jump up and shout Sean - STOP! Don’t mention this ugly thing. Don’t show it on TV. Because if you do, YOU are the one that is the problem. YOU are the one that is tearing the nation apart.
Anchoress, we wouldn’t look for a president inside the church of David Duke. And each and every time one of the righty pastors says something stupid, from Billy Graham, to Pat Robertson, to Jerry Falwell, we insisted, we demanded, we screamed for blood until our leaders condemned those words. We don’t wait 20 years. Heck, we won’t even wait 20 minutes.
So why is it different for Mr. Obama? Shouldn’t I hold him to the same standard I would hold a teenager?
March 15th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Mommy yes it is - as I said a few posts down, the PRIMACY OF VICTIMHOOD.
Hillary’s people are serving the same function for her only none of them are ordained
And yet, I still cannot help but feel…guess what I’m going to say next…
that there are other ways to take the candidate down and that this way should not be it.
I would prefer not to see any candidates taken down by an imperfect association and the noise of indignation.
That way is DESTROYING our political process.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I have an afternoon full of appointments so I won’t be able to answer all of this, so I’ll make this my last response.
Sandy Berger is still one of Hillary’s campaign advisers. Why is she not being taken down for that?
Ohiogranny I appreciate your analogy about childraising and the company they keep and would normally agree with you, if this association was not a church-based one.
I’m not even going to bother responding to anyone who has implied here (or in email) that I am suggesting Obama is “fit” for office.
But the thing is…he’s fit to RUN. And he’s fit to be brought DOWN. HOW he is brought down and WHY matters to the future of our political mien and process.
A few comments up there, one about how “religion drenched” this election has been, another about how this all opens up the sort of danger that could ruin a Catholic whose parish might have contained a pederast priest (they were mostly pederasts, not pedophiles), another about my unfairness at using “hysterical rage” and finally the one laying it out that this is Hillary’s bid to destroy a man for her own gain are all basically summing up what is bothering me about this.
Yes, this is an insanely “religion drenched” election. We saw Mitt Romney played with by the press over his religion, like a cat and mouse game, and the South essentially chose Huckabee over Romney because of religion. Then there was the Obama/Muslim thing, then we had to watch Hillary wear a cross and carry on about her faith for the umpteenth time before she put it away. Now this. Instead of real talk, real issues, real ideas, we’re just watching religion get played with, bashed, exploited and otherwise used as a tool to distract us. It’s what my Auntie Lillie would call “the devil’s own game,” if you will, and yes, if Obama’s pastor’s idiocy is allowed to be the preferred take down (which it appears it will be) then expect the pastors of every politician to be gone over with fine-toothed combs - heading down a slippery slope here.
Yes, okay, “he sat in the pew for 20 years” - as I said - love makes you blind.
If I seem out of patience with the sort of breathless rage that is being attached to this issue perhaps its because “breathless rage” has become all too much to the fore in our politics. We have “breathless rage” over illegal immigration, “breathless rage” over the Dubai ports deal (even Rush could not calm people down on that one) “breathless rage” because “the base” did not like McCain, “breathless rage” when suddenly all the “best” candidates were gone and the base hadn’t voted for them and “breathless rage” when it was suggested to them that they had several years to seek out and build up a candidate they did like. There is too much of it and it seems way too quickly stirred these days. It almost feels like there is a little pilot light of rage in the populace and it sits there just waiting to flare up. All this rage cannot be good for us or our process. “Breathless rage” used to be the province of the left. Now it has infected the whole body politic.
I am not, btw, as some of you have implied in emails, “irrational,” here. I’m simply asking folks to look a little deeper.
It will not do for every issue that comes up to be run through the “rage” cycle.
Hillary must be loving this, btw. Let Obama be destroyed in this way, rather than by a real political fumble on his own (which would have been inevitable because he’s an amateur) and she gets to pick her crown up from the gutter, and she doesn’t much care if she’s had to rip up the nation to get it. Thanks to her pal at the Enquirer, her fingerprints aren’t even on it.
If this gambit succeeds, we’re in for a hell of a time.
Rusell wrote: However, my statement above shows you just how angry I am at the far left for their treatment of Bush (although I still can’t understand why he didn’t do more to better his image; then again, who would have given him a fair shake?).
Well, no one would have given him a fair shake, but I think it’s more than that. I wrote here:
President Bush drives us crazy. We want him to fight back. He won’t. We want him to “save” himself. He won’t. He won’t “save” his presidency, either. He won’t “save” his party. He won’t “save” his legacy.
President Bush is doing what is unthinkable - he is staying true to the task laid out before him, to serve all the people. He is remaining faithful to that and he is counting on his God to do the rest, as his God has promised.
This is remarkable witness.
In an era when every special-interest group demands satisfaction for real or imagined “slights,” when Christians try to insist upon respectfulness from the arts, and radical Islamists demand blood or force conversions for any perceived “insult,” this Christian man stands before the world and insists only that the course of liberty be pursued and that he be allowed to protect the safety, rights and freedoms of his citizens. He does not insist that you treat him well. Quite the opposite. He looks at something you can’t see and he allows you to say anything about him you want to, and he holds fast to a promise.
He stands before the entire world and allows that world to curse and mock him, to condemn him. He allows himself to be identified as the “cause” of every difficulty - the “biggest terrorist” in the world, the “most vile human” on the planet. Not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not the raping, murdering warlords of Dafur, not Vladimir Putin.
George W. Bush, who started a revolutionary push toward world-wide liberty and democratic process - he’s the vile oppressor. He’s the guy who wants to take away your freedoms, pollute your planet into extinction and silence your internets. He’s the “Nazi” who is trying to kill the free speech you are ironically spouting all over the place against him, on television, on the radio, on the stage, on the printed page, quite without fear of reprisal. President Bush, you see, is not the one who tries to shut people up.
Bush has managed to get a lot done without ever flipping out or wagging a finger at us. He’s never lost his head or allowed emotion to carry the day. And he seems to be the only Republican who is not insisting that Obama’s relationship with his pastor should be the cause of the takedown.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I passionately disagree that “nothing good can come from this.” And I say that not in total disagreement with you Anchoress, but certainly in agreement with your “illusion” theory, of which you and I are in complete agreement. Obama is the MASTER ILLUSION (regardless of how he got there, even if sadly, by a missing father figure).
As others have pointed out, Wright up until yesterday was his campaign advisor! That matters. Added to the illusion is Oprah. Wait until THAT shoe drops (if anyone in MSM dares risk taking that on). For clarity, I strongly disagree (and defended Romney when he was up against it) that any president should be subjected to a religious litmus test.
However…. the Evangelical and Catholic vote have the power to determine the next POTUS, and more than likely will. For many, REAL Christianity matters, and this incident is the first to expose any “closer look” beyond Obama calling himself a good Christian man, that most took at his word despite his actions (not to be confused with unforgiveness, as Obama isn’t showing any evidence of backing down from his anti-Christian policies.)
The million fold bigger dupe is Oprah. One click on Oprah.com will swoon you right into her new age worldwide new age “Eckhart ‘New Earth’ teaching”, while her radio station continues the year long teaching A Course in Miracles. These are both Anti-Christ teachings, plain and simple, based on the “nothing new under the sun Gnostic and syncretism heresies.” Just as Obama may have rightly been mislead by his pastor, so are millions of American Christians, who also for “good” reasons, may find a “reason to bond” with Oprah. Not being able to possibly “hear” what she preaches could well endanger their eternal salvation.
If Obama is really the Christian man he wants us to believe he is, shouldn’t he disassociate from Oprah? I couldn’t possibly know if or if not he is even aware of her perilous teachings, but as a presidential candidate, he NEEDS to know and has an obligation to vet his associates. My point is not to take away Oprah’s freedom of speech, regardless of how much I abhor it, but to show that “IF someone in the MSM has the guts to “expose Oprah”, much good CAN come from it, at least for the millions of Christians who are blindly following her every word; including electing Obama as our next POTUS, the man who is anything but who he says he is.
Bottom line, this isn’t about making a case against the teachings of Oprah or Pastor Wright, or even that we need to have a religious president. It is however, about deception and illusion, both of which the MSM are reluctant, or too afraid, to expose. Obama is no Bobby Jindal, regardless of how it may “appear.”
March 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I just hope when Bobby Jindal gets to run (please God, 2012) the fact that he is a Catholic Convert of Hindu parents - with all the imperfect clergy those two religions may provide for fodder - does not create a handy opening to destroy him.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I am yet another who often reads you, but has never posted before. As a conservative Episcopalian living in a very liberal diocese, I have spent most of my Christian life under bishops with whom I violently disagreed. I have also twice had the experience of having revisionist priests come into a parish where I had strong community ties. In both cases, I tried to stay in the parish because of those ties.
While I can understand remaining in a church for community reasons,even though you disagree with the pastor, I cannot conceive of also going to such a pastor/priest/minister for spiritual advice, saying that person inspired me, asking them to be my adviser, and giving them an official position on my campaign.
If you, as a Catholic, felt obliged to remain in your parish despite a bad priest, would you also seek out stronger ties with that priest, and claim him as an inspiration? Would you give him an official position as advisor to your blog?
It is perfectly true that there have been white clergymen who have said things just as horrendous as Rev. Wright’s statements. However, I can’t think of a single successful candidate who embraced Falwell or Robertson as their pastor and particular adviser. Speaking at Bob Jones University may be bad, but it’s nothing like this.
This is not a question of “imperfect association”, but of close and deliberate association. Obama did not have a casual relationship with this pastor, but willfully sought him out. He is not being condemned because he goes to a UCC church, and it just happens that within the UCC there is racist pastor.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
[...] I therefore find myself in the peculiar position of disagreeing with her twice in as many days. The post at issue is one the Anchoress wrote in the wake of the “aha!” journalism that suddenly sprang up when Obama went public and [...]
March 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[...] After years of agreement, maybe it’s time for a respectful disagreement. You are someone whose intellect and power to communicate is such that you often make me stop and think. I promise you I’ve done that here, but your usual prescient judgement and insight got this one wrong. [...]
March 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Most criticism of Wright and Obama in this matter has, I think, been misdirected. I agree with you that whether Obama abjures this or that statement that Mr Wright makes is not the point. I also agree that a congregation is more than simply the pastor, but the community. And that Wright preaches from the [hard] left wing.
But put all that together, and it raises what I think *is* the point: What is it about this congregation (which after all called that particular minister) that Obama finds nourishing? I suspect that it’s precisely the patina of spirituality on hard left politics, and that’s what people who reflect on it will be scandalized by. (And yes, people should also be scandalized when the church baptizes hard right politics.)
March 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Huge fan, Anchoress. But I must totally disagree. I’m a black guy and a Christian, and if I’d ever encountered a church that taught such stuff I’d have run out the door screaming. Not only are these sermons idiotic, they are arguable unChristian in their paranoia and hatefulness. Even Barack Obama seems to understand this–now. What bothers me is simply this–where’s he been for the past 20 years? How can he expect us to believe that he spent two decades in a church, but had no idea that the pastor believed such stuff, even as the pastor repeatedly made such proclamations from the pulpit–and distributed videos of his sermons?
Barack Obama is either a complete idiot–something I simply cannot believe–or a rip-roaring liar. I pick Door Number 2. He knew his pastor preached this stuff, probably did think it was over the top–even I can’t imagine that Obama believes this sort of stuff. But for some reason he remained at that church. Why? I grew up in Chicago; the city is full of eloquent, erudite, fiery black preachers. Not all of them are raving nutters. Why on earth did Obama insist on consorting with this loon? In any case, he did. And to declare now that he didn’t know what the guy was preaching and publishing? He didn’t know? The claim offends the listener’s intelligence. It’s an obvious, flagrant lie. And I think the importance of this lie is difficult to exaggerate, especially in these times.
For years we’ve watched as Muslim clerics around the world proclaim that mass murder of infidels is God’s will. As a Christian, what disturbs me most about this is the fact that so few of their co-religionists denounce their murderous gibberings. Even when these fanatics are criticized, the critics often try to minimize the significance of the matter. They say, “well, of course, these people go too far. But look at how the Israelis treat the Palestinians. Can you blame them for getting carried away?” Most of us listen with astonishment, and in my case, with growing contempt.
If you call yourself a servant of God, at the very least you have some obligation to speak out when somebody’s lying about God, and bringing dishonor to him by associating your religion with stupid, evil, dangerous ideas. A serious Christian should have, at the very least, denounced Rev. Wright’s more extreme ideas without having to be goaded into it. By treating it with a nod and a wink until the press got hold of it, Obama is acting just like the “responsible” Muslims who can’t bring themselves to criticize the maniacs in their midst until airliners start colliding with skyscrapers. I don’t want to hear this from Obama now, because he’s in trouble. I would have wanted him to bail out of that church years ago. I think the fact that he didn’t is profoundly disturbing and quite inexcusable. And the fact that he claims not to have known about Wright’s looney-tunes ideas marks Obama as a liar of the first magnitude, willing to tell whoppers on a Clintonian scale.
Sorry, Ank. You’re wrong on this one. Hardly anything that’s happened so far in this campaign matters as much as this does. We’ve just gotten a clearer look at the real Barack Obama, and it’s not a pleasant sight.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Anchoress:
I am sorry, but I just think you despise Hillary Clinton so much you are ready to overlook almost anything Obama says or does. I don’t like Hillary either and I will not vote for her. But Hillary did not put Obama in this position, he did it to himself. I did vote for Bush and I think he is a Christian man, the same Bush that people like Pastor Wright hate with such abandon.
Just words you say? Well, when Jim Jones started preaching Christian socialism in Terre Haute, In those words were just words too, until hundreds of people drank the koolaid. The problem is they believed the words.
Like Obama says, words matter.
The truth is I think Barack Obama is lying. I think he knew that his Pastor and spiritual adviser ranted and raved about America being evil and starting the AIDS virus just to kill people and all manner of lunacy…. And he sat there and did nothing.
I grew up in the Baptist Church. I knew of people who left the first church my parents took me to, because there was piano playing and by God they did not think that was right.
Obama overlooks God Damn America while other people walk out of church over a piano. What a weak man he must be.
I do not care about what Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell might have said. Falwell is dead and Pat is not McCain’s spiritual adviser. The fact that some people do believe that if people fall away from the faith they will be punished is ridiculous. But Pastor Wright does not say that. He says America was getting blowback when the Towers fell . He said they deserved to die because America is evil. And Obama just sat there. Do you think Bush would have stayed in that church?
And btw, I do not listen to Hannity or O’Reilley or Rush Limbaugh. I came to this conclusion on my own. And this is not about religious hysteria or anything else. There has never been a time in our history when snuggling up to a guy who rants God Damn America from a pulpit {or anywhere else} was something an aspiring candidate for the Presidency could get away with.
And I do hope that Jindal runs. If his grandparents were Hindu who will care? This is not even close to being the same thing. This is not about perfect vs imperfect. This is about poor judgment.
After all it was Obama who made a point of telling us he was about a new future. This is not about destroying Obama, if there was nothing all that wrong with him going to Trinity Church for 20 years and listening to Pastor Wright preach hatred, malice and bitterness…then why would he be destroyed?
March 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I saw this at Power line :
If we take Obama at his word, his relationship with Wright was not pure opportunism. Rather there was an affinity. What was the nature of that affinity?
I think we should stipulate that it was not Wright’s most extreme racist and anti-American pronouncements. But it also seems clear that it was not traditional Christian belief either. Obama was not looking for that — indeed, he had rejected traditional Christianity before encountering Wright. As just noted, Wright brought him to Jesus. More precisely, Wright’s brand of Christianity accomplished this.
What is that brand? According to Wright (for example, during his contentious interview with Sean Hannity last year), the brand is liberation theology. Liberation theology sees the Christian mission as bringing justice to oppressed people through political activism. In effect, it is a merger of Christianity with radical left-wing ideology. Black liberation theology, as articulated for example by James Cone who inspired Wright, emphasizes the racial aspect oppression.
It’s easy to see why this brand of Christianity, and probably only this brand, could bring a left-wing political activist like Obama to Jesus.
How would the statements of Wright that have recently come to light be viewed in the context of liberation theology? In particular, employing the various terms Obama has used to describe Wrights statements, which ones would be “not particularly controversial,” which would be “controversial” or “provocative,” and which would be deplorable?
Comments about crimes against Palestinians would, I submit, fall within the mainstream of liberation theology, just as they do for most hard-leftists who don’t put Christianity into the mix. Palestinians make the “A List” of oppressed victims of virtually every ideology that sees the world as divided into oppressors and the oppressed.
Comments about the U.S. treating some of its citizens as less than human, or bringing 9/11 on itself, or inflicting AIDs on black people would, I take it, be controversial and provocative even within the world of black liberation theology. One can believe that oppression is rampant and that the U.S. is heavily implicated, without going as far as Wright did in these remarks.
But Wright’s remarks seem no worse than controversial and provocative within this framework. An oppressor will go to great lengths to oppress, and it is an open question just how far that imperative extends. Wright offers one possible answer to that question: there are virtually no limits. If that answer were beyond the pale of the black liberation theology of his congregation, Wright would not have survived and prospered there.
Moreover, certain comments of Michelle Obama are surely uncontroversial in the world of black liberation theology. It would, in fact, be most difficult to reconcile pride in America with that theology. The open question for its adherents is how low their estimation of America should be, and how low they think America would stoop. Pride in America would seem out of the question.
In sum, Barack Obama’s close and longstanding affiliation with Wright and his church probably does tell us something important about the man. It doesn’t tell us that he agrees with Wright’s most extreme ravings, but it suggests that Obama is enough of a leftist to be attracted to, and comfortable at, a place where Wright’s most extreme views, though controversial and provocative, are not outrageous.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Re: #39 by the Anchoress/Bobby Jindal:
Excellent point Anchoress, but it won’t happen, despite how hard they try. The reason is simple; Jindal comes from solid Truth. How do you think he won by a landslide in Democratic Louisania? If Obama has taught (shown) us anything, it’s the “hunger”; the kind that won’t be satiated by short lived illusions, only Truth itself. I ditto, PLEASE GOD 2012 for Jindal!
My whole counter arguemnt to you is based not on religion (that just what happens to be there at the moment), but on the illusion which is finally starting to break. IMO, that IS a real and important issue.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
To me, the problem is Rev. Wright’s theology does not render unto Caesar. Instead, Rev. Wright’s theology intertwines the spiritual with the political; intertwines the spiritual with economics, foreign policy, social policy, managed socialism vs. democratic freedom, et al, et al, et al times five hundred. To my knowledge, Rev. Wright doesn’t have a Rome type entity to guide him, or to tutor and coach him. Rev. Wright doesn’t have a national religious organization to answer to. To the best of my knowledge, Rev. Wright has self-created his own religious ideology. It is an ideology which celebrates the virtue of victimhood to an alarming extent.
When an religious ideology is openly designed to intertwine the spiritual and the political, then: where does the criticism of politics end, and criticism of religion begin? A tricky little question, that.
There is more to be thought through about this intriguing and very American situation. I’m confident there are several lessons to be learned(if only I could think what they are!).
Re: Jindal
B/c the Catholic Church is designed to be about the spiritual - to the exclusion of the political - I don’t anticipate that Jindal’s Catholicism will cost Jindal any extreme number of votes.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
The problem I have with Obama and his claim that he’s never heard Wright say these things is that it simply can’t be true. When we belong to a church whether it is Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, etc., it is because we believe in what the faith teaches.
In the case of the Catholic Church we Catholics believe and should practice the tenets of the faith. We go to Mass to affirm them. My husband and I lef