Presidential campaign `revs’ up
Note to pastors: Pray that no one in your congregation runs for president. Zachary Roth writes in Columbia Journalism Review that while it’s good that reporters have scrutinized the controversial statements of Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it’s too bad they haven’t given similar treatment to John McCain’s “spiritual 
advisor.” That, according to CJR, is how McCain referred to Rod Parsley, an Ohio mega-church pastor. The two relationships don’t quite compare, but Roth writes:”Parsley has his own history of controversial statements. As David Corn reported this week for Mother Jones, Parsley has called for Christians to wage war against the “false religion” of Islam, in order to destroy it. He does not distinguish between Islamic extremists and ordinary Muslims. “What some call ‘extremists’ are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam,” he has written.”
[Photo of Rev. Rod Parsley from www.RodParsley.com]
Crusade anyone?
Foot soldiers kick off at 0600, mounted knights an hour later.
Zachary Roth has not quoted the most disturbing of Jeremiah Wright’s statements–the condemnations of America, which I will not even quote here–and while he may find Rod Parsley more offensive than Jeremiah Wright, I am absolutely certain that most Americans would come to the opposite conclusion. This is a potential catastrophe for Obama and the Democratic party.
A couple of Reverend Wright’s statements:
“Not God bless America…, …God**** America…”
“The CIA invented AIDS..”
This from a spiritual advisor and good friend of Barack Obama. From the pastor of the church Obama has attended regularly for twenty years, the church Wright has preached at for over twenty years, the church Obama specifically chose to attend twenty years ago, the church Obama’s children were baptized. Maybe that’s why Michelle always seems so angry.
My parish priest is not particularly exceptional, and I’m not running for any kind of office, but I’d hate to be judged on his mindset, words or performance.
I understand that Obama has publicly dissociated from Rev Wright.
I’m sorry, but there is a world of difference between a preacher that a candidate knows and likes and one who the candidate has regularly listened to for most of his adult life, who he says is like a member of the family, and a close spiritual advisor.
Can you imagine if Bush, or any other candidate had regularly attended a white supremicist church for 20 years?
This isn’t even a question of a friend or pastor saying something indiscrete. Then I might buy Obama’s “disassociation” from his words. Remember, most of these sermons have been taken from DVDs and other sources that Rev Wright has published himself. It is the stuff he is most proud of. The idea that Obama was unaware of Wright’s mindset is laughable. He knew what the man stood for. Have you ever been in a parish where the priest said something controversial, or even clever, and everyone in the parish doesn’t know about it even if they didn’t go to that mass? Remember, Obama isn’t just another congregant – he was a local powerbroker and the subject of some of these rants.
I actually think Obama probably doesn’t agree with Wright’s statements. He seems to smart for that. That being the case, then one might conclude that his close association has more to do with Chicago politics than with faith. Which may be even more disturbing for those who think he transcends politics.
David N: Sorry to be disagreeing with you so much these days, but I think “catastrophe” is a bit alarmist. I agree that Obama needed to reject these comments, but I think he has done this an the issue will slowly go away. The one thing that gives me confidence that this is not going to be a big deal is that it is the one issue where Republicans have even wackier clergy. I enjoyed this tidbit that I found over at TPM:
One last thought. I think that it is entirely possible for black people in the U.S. to love their country, fight for the their country, and say great things abuot their country. I also think it makes perfect sense for a black person to still direct great anger at the U.S. I am not yet comfortable thinking that it is the business of white people to tell them to watch their tongues. If one does not like what is being said, ignore it, disagree with it, but don’t be shocked by it.
In America, while we like to talk about political parties as though their platforms are what matters, what we really love to do is to try to peer into people’s souls to see the secret wells of desire. What does Obama really believe in his heart? And should he become president, what is really going to do with all of that power. Is he going to throw in with Al Qaeda if it turns out that he’s a secret Muslim? Is he going to launch a nuclear attack on Washington if it turns out that he secretly hates America?
McCain’s inner heart has been vetted by the Right. His slavish support of Bush’s disastrous policies get a pass because McCain is his own man and his slavishness is actually a sign of his independence. He courts the support of the crazier elements of the Religious Right, but when they make bigoted statements, he can disavow just those parts because everyone knows that in his secret heart (despite the fact that just half a year ago he was considered almost a Democrat by these people) he is a firm supporter of only those religious sentiments that don’t really offend people.
Obama is a scary black man with a funny name and it is much harder to see into his soul because he is, well, so foreign really. We must be very careful with the scary black man. As is the case with McCain, we shouldn’t listen to what they say or look at what they do. We need to speculate about what they are really thinking, on the assumption that what they are doing and saying are not reflections of what is really inside.
We have long argued for religion to hav ea plac ein the public square.
And rightly so – to speak for the values that should inform policy.
What we haven’t done is deal with religious extremism and bigotry as it arises, except in a kind of ad hoc and often partisan way.
I include Pat Robertson and Bob Jones U. on the right in some of this.It’s really sad to hear from Rev. Wright on his deep anger – anger driven by the behind the scenes bickering in this campaign and beyond that, his own life experiences.
He has wounded the Obama campaign.
Maybe we could get ll major candidates to say something as a group about religious exrtremism in the campaign and their own commitments to values.
“I also think it makes perfect sense for a black person to still direct great anger at the U.S. I am not yet comfortable thinking that it is the business of white people to tell them to watch their tongues. If one does not like what is being said, ignore it, disagree with it, but don’t be shocked by it.”
Anger is one thing. Jury nullification is another. Being ashamed of being an American is one thing. Being proud to be an American for the first time is another. Atoning for the past is one thing. Sanctioning or encouraging irresponsibility is another. Being racist is one thing. Pulling the race card to excuse bad behavior is another.
Criticizing the church is one thing. Saying Goddam the church is another.
Joe, I am surprised by your remarks. I will refrain from further remarks. Maybe others can place your remarks in a better light. It seems to me that many blacks would object to your remarks. I wonder what others have taken away from your words.
Here’s a question. Is it possible to interpret the Rev.’s remarks, in context, in the manner of the Oracles against Israel in the Hebrew Prophets–deep invective, motivated by a desire to promote change? Are we seeing yet another instance of prophetic rhetoric?
Bill: I am having a little trouble following your concers. You mention jury nullification and encouraging irresponsibility. Perhaps you were reading this piece from Clarence Page discussing David Simon’s (a white guy) suggestion that jurors nullify all nonviolent drug cases that come before them:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.page14mar14,0,6713592.story
Before expressing outrage at such an idea, it would help to indicate a genuine internalization and understanding of the human and social destruction of the war on drugs.
There is criticism and there is anger. My words about Rev. Wright sought to make the point that anger from a black man directed at the United States is just not shocking, and I think it a bad idea for white folks to tell such a man to keep quiet. Like I say, you don’t have to agree with it, you can strongly reject it, ignore it, etc.
Regarding Michelle Obama, for the record, she did say she was “really” proud for the first time. I think many of us understand what it is to be proud and then to be really proud of a child, business, church, etc. To say one is really proud of a child does not mean that one was not proud of that child before. That said, I think it was a politically dumb thing for her to say.
Cathleen,
I think that’s quite a stretch. Weren’t the prophets telling Israel what it didn’t want to hear? In the clips we have seen, Jeremiah Wright is speaking to an audience who appears to be quite receptive to what he is saying.
Joe,
Please note that I said “potential catastrophe,” not “catastrophe.” If Obama’s opponents are able to link Obama and Jeremiah Wright in the minds of enough people who are already a little wary, it seems to me it could be very serious. McCain is going to be running as a war hero. To patriotic Americans, whether or not they approve of the war in Iraq, it’s not difficult to choose between a war hero and somebody who is associated with “God damn America.”
Watching the clip of Michelle Obama saying she was “really proud” of America for the first time, there is no detectable emphasis on the word really. This is the kind of parsing of words that is described as “Clintonian.” And in her clarification, I don’t believe she used that kind of dodge herself. As reasonably interpreted, I think her initial remark was in line with Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric.
Of course, it almost goes without saying for those of us who are good liberals that the United States, going all the way back to the Founding Fathers, is guilty of a great many sins. However, some of the things Jeremiah Wright apparently believes in (like the United States inventing AIDS and the CIA spreading it) are not true, and even the things that are true are things Americans don’t want to be reminded of in a presidential election campaign.
One element of this that has not been mentioned is how much it is politics as usual. First Obama rescinds the invitation to Wright for the invocation at his announcement. Next he says he “wasn’t there” when Wright made the inflammatory statements. Next he says Wright is like on old uncle at family gatherings that you don’t agree with. Next Obama denounces, somewhat vaguely, “the statements that are at issue,” and Wright is no longer a campaign official. As Obama has been pushed, he has done at each step what apparently he needs to do. I’m not saying he has done anything at all wrong. It just all looks so familiar.
From what we know about the prophets, there were likely smaller groups of people around them who agreed with and supported them–but the message was addressed to a hostile and unbelieving society who often didn’t want to hear them..
I guess, what I’m asking, is there any sense of a call to repentance and reform (i.e., the oracles against Israel) or is it just a call to destruction (i.e, the oracles against the nations).
Now, as most people know who read this blog regularly , I am not an enthusiast of prophetic indictment — no matter who’s doing it–but I think it’s important to get a handle on the nature of the rhetoric, so one understands what’s going on.
On a mundane political level, let’s ask why Jeremiah Wright should be a drag on Obama at all, given that Americans elected Ronald Reagan twice and the current present twice (well, once) despite the fact–or perhaps because of the fact–that they were strongly backed by white pastors whose pulpit (and TV) rhetoric was every bit as over the top as Rev. Wright’s.
David, I don’t think most of the populace would agree with you about “over the topness.”
Stil, I think Joe P. has a point in the objective order and not just as folks perceive it. We could all use a little of the John Howard Griffin experience to understand the anger.
Still, I think it’s clear this will wound Obama (not sure how much?), which is a far bigger question than should it – for this election.
David G,
In the case of George Bush, is the pastor in question Mark Craig of Highland Park Methodist Church?
And for Ronald Reagan, are you referring to Michael H. Wenning of Bel Air Presbyterian Church?
Could you give us an example of their over-the-top rhetoric?
Joe, Jury nullification refers most of all to the arch-typical event when the O.J. Jury cleared him as quickly as they intimidated two white jurors to agree with them. It was a most violent crime, you will agree. That was not a good day for blacks. Not a good day for America. It was a vengful, hateful message. Certainly they were right to decry historic masscres and cruel injustices. But to approve vengeance or hatred of any ilk is to pander and to let one’s guilt overcome reason.
The reference here is not to poor and deprived blacks but to an affluent Minister who has, for one of his parishioners, a united States Senator.
With reference to prophetic action, Wright’s cannot be true because he condemned a people rather than an action and there was hate involved which is antithetical to prophetic behavior. False prophets perhaps. Secondly, I would say we have to distinguish between prophetic action in the OT as compared to the present age. The times were certainly more primitive in the OT. Jesus referred to “the hardness of your hearts.” They are similar in that they call the faithful to repentance. But for a “modern” prophet to spew hatred or vengeance disqualifies her ipso facto.
Cathy, why shouldn’t or couldn’t we have genuine modern prophets? Granted these are not simple waters to traverse and explain. But that cannot disqualify the existence nor the need.
Bob N., I agree with you about the public’s double standard–which is my attempt to make a sneaky debating point. Those religious right folks have made all manner of absurd and hurtful comments, and post 9/11 made comments saying we deserved that attack. Yet they happily remain not-so-strange bedfellows with successful political candidates.
Another irony I like (well, I find it unsettling), is that while everyone is focused on the comments of Obama’s Christian pastor, a WSJ/NBC News poll shows that since December there was a 5% increase (8 to 13%) in respondents who think Obama is Muslim.
Check out the post on this from Spiritual Politics:
http://egghead.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/SpiritualPolitics/2008/03/rumor_mill_has_strong_2nd_quar.html
David Nickol, I didn’t catch your question before I posted my comment. I don’t think we should be so legalistic about limiting the ties to the presidents’ own pastors. Robertson and Falwell and their ilk were in a deep embrace with Reagan and Bush.
But if you want to keep the discussion at that level, I will cede the point. The problem is that Reagan and Bush (Jr.) were/are not church-goers. They weren’t actually members of any church or denomination. Reagan was notoriously slack about belief or religion, and George W. Bush eschews any denominational ties or attendance, except on a few mandatory occassions. If he does a Sunday service, it is usually at the chapel at Camp David with some friends. he’s more a home church guy, if anything.
This is a interesting point for discussion, I think, in that Obama–like Catholic pols–carry the burden of being “religious” people in the sense that they are associated with a church, with a tradition, with a body of teacing, and with a hierarchy or church leaders, for good or ill. I am obviously sympathetic to such folks, as I think living in that tension is not easy–and with politicians, it often shows up their weaknesses (as it should for all of us). Free-range Christians or “cultural” believers like Reagan need not be bothered with such tensions.
The point about reverend Wright’s statements isn’t the anger with which he expressed them! It is the ideas he expressed! Had he very calmly asserted that the CIA invented AIDS or had he in a very soft and kindly voice said God damn America, the result would probably be even more alarming: A close friend of Barack Obama, indeed Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor believes that the CIA invented AIDS, believes that the American government smuggles drugs into the ghettos in order to have reason to arrest and imprison African-Americans, and asks God to damn the entire nation, that is the point. Anger shmanger.
Can anyone show me where, during his time in the Illinois senate, or in the US Senate, or during this campaign where Obama has dropped the slightest hint that he has adopted or adapted the ideas or attitudes of Wright? There is this constant inuendo that because he claims friendship with Wright and has considered him a spiritual advisor in the past, that he, therefore, MUST have taken on these attitudes. Proof, please. Otherwise there is a strong amount of subtle character assasination going on.
Read the book of Jeremiah, say 6:11-16. The Jeremiad is a form of preaching which this country is very familiar See Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad. It’s not nice. It doesn’t draw nice distinctions. It’s condemnatory –it condemns whole people, not merely actions. It is a far more common mode of preaching in Bible-based churches than in the Catholic church. Bercovitch talks about the common damning of America–the idea that it is going to suffer God’s wrath because of its iniquities–in early sermons. Factual exaggerations are not uncommon in this form of preaching.
There are Jeremiads on both the right and the left. We tend to cut the Jeremiahs we agree with more slack than the ones we don’t. See the whole debate about the call to civility a few months ago.
I think Jimmy Mac’s question is a good one.
The new pastor at Obama’s church represents an interesting development, or so it seems from this video, via the Dallas Morning News blog:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/the-new-face-of-barack-obamas.html
I doubt Obama will be getting props for the new guy, though he should RUSH to claim him as a spiritual advisor if he has any political sense!
But this also reinforces an interesting generational shift in the black community, though perhaps chielfy and only in this congregation. Obama and the new pastor represent a new generation. That’s another irony–for the longest time Jeremiah Wright seemed like the only old-time, Sixties black radical veteran who liked Obama. All those other guys dissed him.
The OT is problematic not just with the prophets but in other areas. The Christian church embraced some serious difficulties when it started quoting more frequently from the OT in the fourth century. Finding no justification for their unchristian behavior they quickly resorted to the OT to justify their going against the NT.
Aside from acting sanctimoniously a prophet reminds of us our lack of commitment and our mediocrity in following someone whose message was in the Sermon on the Mount. In too many Christian churches the Sermon of the Mount is cast aside as optional. True prophets remind us that it is part and parcel of the message. Contrary to Jeremiah it offers love of enemies, forgiveness and love instead of the sword and spilling of blood. We need true prophets to keep us on message.
Sean,
Catholics of a liberal bent such as myself don’t find it difficult at all to accept the*best* teachings of narrow-minded, often ignorant,sometimes verbally extreme old men, some of whom are so out of sink with the general culture that they even wear dresses and lace. it’s their core message that we accept, and, yes, we are very grateful to them for preserving it.
Bill, I’m trying to work out now what good Protestant prophetic discourse would look like (which does take the OT prophets more seriously) and what good Catholic prophetic discourse would look like. But you have hit upon a number of important points.
Ann, thanks for that.
Rev. Wright’s claims about AIDS do not serve his cause and they make him look foolish. Claims about the government putting drugs in black neighborhoods are widespread, at least among urban African-Americans. I have challenged these claims where I teach, but the fact is that some of my students make the claim every year.
There is much power in this world that does not hear the cry of the poor. How much of that power is making things worse for the poor is not clear to me, but it is clear that our inability to hear the cry of the poor causes great suffering, in our world, and I think even for God. If Abraham Joshua Heschel is right, it is the suffering of God that is the true source of the prophet’s wrath.
I too think Jimmy Mac is right on. It is almost as if we need something other than policy to talk about because we quickly realize that we have no idea what we are talking about in most public policy debates. On matters of religion and personal offense, on the other hand, we conclude that no one needs to know anything at all in order to speak loudly.
I read today that Sean Hannity claimed that Obama should resign from Senate and withdraw from the race. If he did in fact say this, then I think it is time for me to go and learn Mandarin, a long time post-tenure fantasy of mine. If Hannity can say that and not be laughed off the airwaves, I might just have to give up.
Joe:
The point is not that Wright’s remarks make him look foolish. The point is that since he believes them, he is foolish, and we are perfectly entitled to ask a man who may very well be our next president whether getting spiritual advice from a foolish person does not disqualify him. And while we’re at it, Senator McCain needs to get on national television and tell that corpulent jackass Hagee to take his support and shove it where the sun never shines.
And finally, I must be drifting into marmalade skies because I’m starting to really like Sen. Clinton. Not her policies, but her as a person. I watched some tv clips of her, and found her to be personable and balanced, sane and good-humored, with wit and toughness aplenty. On the other hand, Obama seems shallow and glib. I trust him about as far as I’d trust Grant Gallico to say a kind word to Dick Cheney…
Jimmy,
I don’t think anyone needs to prove that Obama has adopted any of Jeremiah Wright’s ideas about race–I don’t believe me has myself–and I don’t think there is any character assassination going on in this discussion (here on dotCommonweal).
It is perfectly legitimate in political races to raise questions about the people a candidate has in his or her campaign. Few people cried foul–either here on dotCommonweal or among the liberal pundits–when the heat was on for Hillary Clinton to “denounce” Geraldine Ferraro, even after Clinton had made a statement that she didn’t agree with Ferraro and that Ferraro was speaking for herself, not the campaign. And how many people on dotCommonweal are appalled that McCain accepted an endorsement from John Hagee? The same principle applies in all cases, although I would have to say I think the case against McCain is weakest.
The relationship between Obama and Wright is a very close one, and there was no way to make it go away, but I do wonder why Obama made Wright an official member of his campaign organization. Here’s an interesting quote from the New York Times of April 30, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all
It is clear from this and from the fact that Obama withdrew the invitation for Wright to speak at the announcement of his candidacy last year that they both knew there could be trouble ahead. One doesn’t need to think Obama believes we should sing “God Damn America” to be worried what the Republicans will make of the Wright videos if Obama is the Democratic nominee or to wonder whether Obama made an error in judgment by giving Wright an official position in the campaign.
Bob: On this matter I can confidently and deeply disagree with you. Some of the greatest minds, and I have no idea whether Rev. Wright falls into this category, have believed the most foolish of things and followed the most foolish of people. Greatness and foolishness are not incompatible.
Bob,
Not all of Rev. Wright’s statement have been foolish. Some have been spot on. For instance, it is simply a fact that Hilary Clinton does not know what it is like for a cab to pass her by because of the color of her skin, neither has she nor the rest of us white folks experienced that whole litany of indignities that Rev. Wright enumerated, indignities that create for African-Americans a much different image of “America”. Much is true that he said about some U.S. governments (governments which he quite inaccurately calls “America” — as do we all). Our Constitution and other ideals might be the greatest, and we love them, but our actions have not always lived up to the ideals. To me, one of our great mythic images of “America” is that stupid image invented by Walt Whitman, perhaps the greatest American poet, who was quite paranoid about the actualities he called “America”. Americans have not always sung great songs, especially not to the weak and powerless.
(Yes, I think some of these very deep problems are partly semantic in origin.)
I believe the real attraction of Barack is that he has shown that a Afro-American can be taken seriously as president by a considerable number of the country. This might even be astounding when blacks only make up 13% of the population. This is a positive that we should all be happy about.
Yet we have to remain objective. David N is pretty convincingly pointing out that the negatives for Hillary are not protested as much as the negatives for Barack. Affirmative action ratio is out of order when running for president.
It is not a matter of expiating guilt though compensation is in order. The presidency cannot be run like an affirmative action program.
For what it’s worth, I think people are making too big a deal out of both Hagee and Wright. In both cases, it raises a question, and both candidates have answered it, from my perspective. This idea of guilt by association doesn’t have to be confined by religion–and if it works as a political tool in either case, won’t be. The next question will be, “Why do you have advisors who don’t agree with the party platform on abortion as a fundamental right”. God help us if Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton have ideas different than their spouses. ‘How could you have married a person who thinks. . . .”
“Can anyone show me where, during his time in the Illinois senate, or in the US Senate, or during this campaign where Obama has dropped the slightest hint that he has adopted or adapted the ideas or attitudes of Wright?”
Don’t you know that it isn’t what they do or say that matters? It’s what they might be thinking deep inside. How’s McCain supposed to get elected if you want to just focus on people’s records?
It seems to me that another factor in this brouhaha is that white rhetoric and black rhetoric are often two different styles of persuasion, and the black kind is closer to Jesus’ kind. We white folks find it startling to say the least when we hear someone say “God damn America!”. and we cannot conceive that the speaker has anything other than scorn for America. The question, it seems to me. is did Rev. Wright mean that literally? Well, I doubt it. Black Sunday sermon rhetoric is thoroughly Bible-dependent, and what do we find in the Bible? Consider Jesus saying, “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!” Did He mean that literally? Obviously not. Exaggeration is part and parcel of Biblical rhetoric. So for Rev. Wright to say “God damn America!” should not be startling to th rest of us.
Jeremiah: 6:11-20
Therefore I am full of the wrath of Jehovah; I am weary with holding in: pour it out upon the children in the street, and upon the assembly of young men together; for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days. 6:12 And their houses shall be turned unto others, their fields and their wives together; for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith Jehovah. 6:13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. 6:15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall; at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith Jehovah. 6:16 Thus saith Jehovah, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls: but they said, We will not walk therein. 6:17 And I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet; but they said, We will not hearken. 6:18 Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them. 6:19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. 6:20 T
Not just Jeremiah but even the NT has to be taken in context with the times they were written. The clear message of Jesus is mercy over sacrifice and that Jeremiah does not truly depict the will nor the mind of God. Certainly we believe in justice and that evil will not go unpunished but to conclude that God is the way Jeremiah show is a decisive error. This is where literalists bungle it up.
Cathleen,
Holding Obama accountable for having Jeremiah Wright as an official member of his campaign is not an example of guilt by association.
If someone objectionable supports a candidate, and I argue you shouldn’t vote for that candidate because someone objectionable supports him or her, that is guilt by association. If the candidate makes that objectionable person a member of his or her campaign, and I say, “You shouldn’t vote for the candidate because he has named an objectionable person to the campaign,” that is not guilt by association.
Ronald Reagan was in this situation with the John Birch Society, and he said something like, “They’re buying my view. I’m not buying theirs.” It would have been a different story if Reagan employed members of the John Birch Society to help run his campaign.
We have already had situations in which candidates had wives who disagreed with them. Betty Ford made it clear she didn’t agree with Gerald Ford on abortion.
Remember the discussion here a year or so ago about Edwards hiring Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan for his campaign?
We live in a broad, pluralistic country –lots of pieces of it hold other pieces in low regard. Candidates have to build coalitions. I think they’re going to have people working for them –on their campaign staff — whom they don’t agree with on every point. I could see how Obama could be looking to his Rev. Wright for a certain type of a certain angry prophetic perspective, a sense of connection to the more alienated members of the African -American community, without necessarily endorsing that perspective on every point.
As insightful as everyone here as tried to be (special thanks to Cathleen and Ann about the nature of black sermons and Jermiads, and Joe who teaches at Morgan), I have often had cause to lament that most of the posters on the blog are white males.
This is one of them.
By the way, see also David Howard-Pitney: The African American Jeremiad: Appeals for Justice in America. “The ebb and flow of optimism about American promise and progress is a pervasive motif in this analysis, affording much innter drama behind these figures’ public words. Douglas, Dubois, and King in particular vacillated with regard to Americaa’ perfectibility. Their rhetoric reveals that the intractability of white racism could plunge them into profound crises of faith and they struggled, often at a cost of great personal turmoil, to sustain a vision of America’s democratic promise.” Intro, p. 14.
The book is worth a read, imho.
Anne and Cathleen,
Please – Rev Wright’s rhetoric is prophetic? The Jesus kind of persuasion?
Just for a moment, substitute the word black or Catholic or Jew or Asian for white in his rants. Then ask youself if this is the “Jesus kind” of persuasion. Or just prophetic hyperbole.
I agree that this will not be a disaster for Obama, because he is who he is, so he will get away without any real scrutiny. All here know the Hagee and Parsley comparisons are weak – even deceptive. Comparing McCain’s relationship with them to Obama’s with Wright is like comparing a buddy from the Rotary Club to your father.
Sean, I’m speaking technically here. It’s a Jeremiad–It’s a well-studied form of literature. I gave two cites to books that talk about its role in the American public religion context. They explain it far better than I can here.
Different branches of Christianity relate to the Old Testament in different ways. Catholics tend to tame it, situating it as the first reading within the context of the mass, which also includes the Second Reading and the Gospel. We also heavily draw upon typological reading in the form of promise/fulfillment. Other branches of Christianity place more emphasis on sermons, and abide with the old testament, sometimes over several weeks, in creating a mood, feeling, sense in the congregation.
Sorry to interrupt the long detour, but could we get back to the subject, which I thought was Rod Parsley?
When anyone bothers to do any research, he or she will discover that Parsley is a Christian Reconstructionist. He favors the imposition of the Mosaic Law on all Americans. He had been associated with the late John Garange, the “Christianist” Sudanese leader who has been documented by Amnesty International as having “disappeared” thousands of Muslim and Christian opponents. He sells “Arthurian,” “Excalibur” swords for $41 a pop so that buyers can enhance their “Christian manhood.” He’s associated with Vision Forum, a fundamentalist, Reconstructionist outfit which both demands “biblical patriarchy” and “biblical capitalism” (that’s no minimum wage, no labor unions, no anti-discrimination laws) and includes among its members neo-Confederates who long for the good ol’ days of slave-whuppin. If Obama is going to be raked over the coals for what his pastor says, McCain should endure no less fretful a fate — especially after he’s accepted the endorsement of a cretin like John Hagee.
Obama’s statement on Huffingtonpost, while not actually referring to anything specific Jeremiah Wright said, is nevertheless very strong (“. . . I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn . . . . I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country . . . . I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue. . . .). What are we to make, then, of Donna Brazile’s saying today on ABC’s This Week, “I’ve known Jeremiah Wright and actually Jeremiah Wright is one of the more moderate black preachers”? Michelle Norris on Meet the Press said something similar.
If Write is engaging in prophetic speech and white people just fail to understand how angry blacks justifiably are, and if Wright is one of the more moderate black preachers, why is Obama denouncing the rhetoric instead of explaining it? If Wright is a moderate, isn’t Obama condemning the stance of a great many black American preachers and contradicting what many black churchgoers hear on Sundays?
Eugene,
Did McCain sit in Parsley’s church for more than two decades?
Did Parsley marry McCain? Baptize his children?
Is McCain a regular subject of his sermons?
I don’t like Hagee, and I don’t like Parsley, but even if you accept their rhetoric as equivalent, the relationship between them and McCain doesn’t even approach Obama’s with Wright. Will you at least concede that?
Cathleen,
The little I know about Jeremiad, and it is admittedly little, makes me think it a very weak comparison. Rather than lamenting the sinfulness of society and God’s judgment, Wright engages in racist invective against his political enemies – including out and outright lies. Seems more like the literary style or Goebbels than Jeremiah.
Also, if one of the candidate’s spouses was a white supremicist or a black nationalist – darn tootin’ I’d be concerned.
Eugene,
It is not often that I rely on Fox News, but note the following article
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/03/15/mccain-camp-disputes-wright-parsley-comparison/
McCain has met Parsley three times and made some nice comments about him during the course of a political campaign. Obama has been a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years, was married by him, had his children baptized by him, named one of his books after one of Wright’s sermons, and made him an official on his campaign’s African-American Religious Leadership Committee.
I am a Democrat, and I plan to vote against McCain and for Obama if Obama is the Democratic nominee. But it’s just preposterous to imply Ron Parsley is to John McCain as Jeremiah Wright is to Barak Obama.
David, you’ve had a lot to say about the Wright matter. How do you think the controversial statements of Parsley and of Wright compare?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/obamas-church-responds/index.html?hp
Jen: You said,
“…I have often had cause to lament that most of the posters on the blog are white males.”
Are you venting your hatred of white males? Your remark is a rather sad reminder of the kind of racist thought that hides under the radar, masquerading as a kind of hipper-than-thou disdain for those who dare to disagree with you and yours. Sorry, I’m not buying it, not for a New York microsecond.
Sorry, I meant “Jean” not Jen.
Grant,
I think this is the pertinent part of the Zachary Roth article:
Conservative Christians with fantastic theories about Israel, Islam, the Rapture, and even about the Catholic Church are a lot closer to being mainstream than what we have heard in the clips from Jeremiah Wright. It’s not difficult to understand why, since white people have all the power in the United States, and since we’ve had so many presidents that were either conservative, southern Christians, or both.
Getting to specifics, I think Parsley’s comments about Islam being a “false religion”–and particularly the claims about it having demonic origins–are crackpot, but I don’t think the majority of the American people would be upset by hearing such talk. Equating Planned Parenthood with the Nazis, to me, is crazy talk, but the pro-life people on dotCommonweal, and people like Robby George, make it clear they think the pro-abortion forces in the United States are akin to mass murderers. Trying to criminally prosecute people for adultery strikes me as a silly idea, but it’s not going to happen.
Roth says Wright’s views are no more objectionable than Parsley’s, but the question is, “To whom?” I think the vast majority of the voters in the United States would be much more confortable hearing denunciations of Islam than they would be hearing angry denunciations of white racism, even without the distortions of fact.
In fairness to Wright (and Parsley, too) we’re only hearing things that people have selected with the intention of discrediting them. In any case, my main concern about Wright’s statements is not about the statements in themselves, but how they can be used against the Democrats in the general election.
Bob Schwartz:
I think it would have been fair for you to say to Jean, “And exactly why do you lament that most of the posters on the blog are white males? Back it up.”
But you comment went much further than that. You said,
Here are my questions:
1) What can you point to, in her statement, that is grounds for suspecting that she might hate white males?
2) Exactly where is her post racist?
If you’re going to make such accusations, you too have to back them up.
Finally, I would say that, in her posts over these many months, she hasn’t expressed “disdain for those who dare to disagree with [her and hers].” She has, yes, expressed strong opinions, but her attitude hasn’t been disdainful of others; the person she’s been most critical of, is herself.
Bob, we have a nice cross-section of opinions by white men (41 of the 54 posts before this one), and I apologize if I sounded dismissive or hurt your feelings.
Just sorry that, especially in posts where race and gender crop up, the blog doesn’t attract a similar cross section among women and black people to see what they might say.
Just a quick “Amen” to Gene Palumbo’s rejoinder to Bob Schwartz. These threads seem to bring out harsher reactions than usual, or warranted, certainly.
I also think David Nickol does get a the pertinent part of the Roth article–the part that can at least give us white guys another opportunity to step back and get some persepctive on our reactions.
Jean:
I would like to apologize for my “racist” remark, and my suggestion that you hate white males. I was way out of line, violating my own recently executed resolution to curb my sometimes bitter and sarcastic tongue. I often stumble in this way, so say a little prayer for me.
Gene: You are absolutely right – see above.
Bob, I’ve certainly been known to go one post too far. Ask anybody.
Apology accepted most sincerely.
May the Lord protect us all from hasty access to the “submit” button–or at least teach us to temper our replies so that others may know our better natures.
Just curious: Are there any black contributors here at all? For all I know, there might be, but the “biography” pages are very uninformative.
Thanks Jean. You are a classy lady and a true scholar.
One quick point about rhetorical uses of words. David Nickol on another thread points out that Sen. McCain has said that Obama would “wave “the white flag of surrender” in Iraq” and, says David, this literally means that the troups would not flee Iraq but that they would quit fighting, surrender their weapons, and turn themselves into the enemy.
Now I ask: what’s the difference between Sen. McCain’s use of “surrender * Rev. Wright’s use of *hates*?
Don’t we indeed have to know the whole context to compare them fairly?