New Poll: The Religious Wright
Senator Barack Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia yesterday on race issues. The speech was precipitated by connections being drawn between Obama and his black liberation theology pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Many people have been turning to the Internet to view statements by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who suggested in one sermon that the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself and in another said blacks should damn America for continuing to mistreat them.
Obama rejected Wright’s divisive statements but still embraced the man who brought him to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and inspired the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope."
Not disown, perhaps, but much of that association has been scrubbed from Obama’s website and elsewhere on the Internet. And that’s begging the question; are Rev. Wright’s view extreme for black liberation theology? See here for Mark Olsen’s look into this. If they are extreme, what does it say about the candidate who supports that church by his attendance and, likely, his money? If they aren’t extreme, what does it say about the theology, in addition to the candidate? [UPDATE: James Taranto reports that they may be more mainstream than some would like to think.]
So then, are a candidate’s pastor’s views fair game for consideration on the campaign trail? Before you answer, consider how the occasional words of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell have been used to paint evangelical Christians with a broad brush, both in the media and in the blogs. But Falwell wasn’t, and Robertson isn’t, the pastor of the vast majority of those people for whom the Left likes to suggest they speak for. Obama, on the other hand, attends by personal choice. If the Left wants to make Robertson the spokesman for millions who may have not heard him speak, doesn’t that standard then apply to someone with a 20-year, close association with a presidential candidate?
Or is there one standard for the Religious Right, and another for the Religious Wright?
Please vote in the poll on the right; do you think it’s fair game?
[tags]Barack Obama,Rev. Jeremiah Wright,race issues,Jerry Falwell,Pat Robertson,Religious Right,Christianity[/tags]
Filed under: Christianity • Democrats • Doug • Politics • Race Issues • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Absolutely, we can consider a person’s church’s teachings (or, in the case of Reagan/Bush/Bush, their lack of attendance at a church) in considering a candidate’s legitimacy. I’d be outraged if a candidate was considered a legitimate candidate who attended that Kansas nutty church (Westboro?).
But most of what I’ve seen on the attacks on Wright have been outrage at his comments in general – claims of racism, hatred and even of being a Muslim group! – and very little on his actual words.
I think Wright’s comments were divisive, poorly chosen (in these few dozens of words out of hundreds of thousands uttered over the years) and in some cases, a bit paranoid. But most of what I’ve read by him (which is not much), I agree with.
I think this is a case of an overblown non-issue. Obama and Wright are clearly not racists or haters of the US. Suggestions to the contrary are bogus and base political attempts by desparate people, seems to me.
Funny how people made an issue of W speaking at BJU back in 2000 (John McCain one of them), but Obama’s 20 year membership to a far more radical church is a non-issue, at least to Obama supporters. Yes, politics is a very dirty and ugly and hypocritical game. But anyway, to answer your question, yes, church membership should be an issue, at least when the church in question teaches things like Rev Wright’s church does.
Dan, if you click on the link in the UPDATE, I think you’ll find rather disturbing news about how many folks in black churches think that what he said — his actual words — as inflammatory as they are, are more mainstream than we’d hope.
I agree, they are just a few dozen out of hundreds of thousands. But that’s exactly my plea against the double standard held vs. Robertson who winds up being the “spokesman” for the “Religious Right” only when he says words “poorly chosen”.
But as I’ve said in the past, I’m not choosing a National Pastor, I’m choosing a President. I was fine with Romney’s candidacy, and would’ve preferred him over McCain, policy-wise. While I disagree with his Christology or other doctrine, I think his worldview is one I could support as expressed in his politics. I think that’s where I would part ways with you, Dan, with regards to how to analyze the Wright situation. If you read Mark Olsen’s look at black liberation theology, combined with the inflammatory remarks by Rev. Wright, the political implications are ones I’m highly uncomfortable with. And if, as you agree, the candidate’s church’s teaching can be considered, then it’s a teaching that is directly at odds with the “racial harmony paintbrush” the Democrats like to paint themselves with.
Obama’s speech said to me, in short, “I disavow anything Wright said that you might find offensive, however you define that.”
And yes, Donnie, that’s an excellent example of the double-standard of the Left with regards to religious affiliation. Thanks for that reminder.
I read Mark O’s commentary and found it mostly confusing and I’m unsure what exactly he has against Liberation Theology, black or otherwise?
Now, I will say that I have some problems with LT, having read about it a little and seen it in practice in Nicaragua – although it’s the theoretical that I have a bit more problem with. Seeing it in practice was a joy to my soul and I praised God for the community I saw, albeit in a brief visit.
My problems are those, though, that I might have with any other Christian on rightly interpreting how to live out our faith – not that I find anything at all heretical about their faith. (In fact, I find it much closer to NT Christianity than many traditional evangelical churches I know.)
So, where is the beef, exactly?
I think you’ll find rather disturbing news about how many folks in black churches think that what he said — his actual words — as inflammatory as they are, are more mainstream than we’d hope.
Well, I know that the more inflammatory stuff is not as un-mainstream as you might think. I live with, go to church with, work with folk of all sorts, including my black brothers and sisters. Even the incredible-sounding “gov’t invented AIDS to destroy blacks” has some measure of belief out there.
But then, our gov’t HAS a history of conspiring against black folk and civil right folk, so if gov’t folk have really been out to get you, is it paranoid to think that the gov’t might be out to get you?
I think this is part of the disconnect between Republicans and the black community. Republicans seem to have no idea of how the other half lives, what they think, what their values are. And when they HEAR about it, they oftentimes scoff, belittle or otherwise marginalize those values and thoughts.
As a result, practically a whole race of people have written off the Republican party. And this, in spite of the fact that our black community tends to be more conservative in many ways than the Dems!
This whole Obama/Wright thing will just serve as a further reminder that the Right is not to be trusted in the view of many. I’m telling you as a favor, Republicans really have an image problem and stuff like this makes it multitudes worse.
Wild conspiracy theories vs Jim Crow laws are an apples to oranges comparison. And should be recognized as such. The fact that there used to be black-only restrooms shouldn’t excuse inflammatory sermons today. I understand you’re not excusing it, but your explanation really doesn’t explain why Democrats are essentially handwaving away what they wouldn’t tolerate from Robertson. It’s a double standard, plain and simple.
Indeed, Republicans need to do more to reach out to the black community. But I will say that this sort of double standard, echoed by the Left and their sycophants in the press, makes it really difficult. What I find disturbing is that the Democrats seem to think that the black vote will go to the highest bidder, i.e. who will do more to give away “free” money. I find that idea abhorrent, but just look askance at social spending, and the “racist!” label comes out fast and furious.
Calling inflammatory speech what it is shouldn’t make anything “multitudes worse”. And you’ve already agreed with the “pastor’s views” premise, so the only thing I see here, given the double standard, is that this particular pastor’s black, as opposed to Robertson. Now that’s racism.
I don’t see how it’s racism at all. Context matters. There’s no real history or context to excuse Robertson’s nutty comments, they’re just nutty comments.
In Wright’s case, there’s a history (that we grew up with in our lifetime – him moreso than me) of the gov’t doing outrageous things. So, given that, I say this (the AIDS charge) sounds a bit paranoid and a bit like a wild conspiracy theory but I find it incredibly plausible that some folk would think it possible because of the context of their history.
So, how is that racist? I’m not giving Wright as hard a time as I would Robertson NOT because of their skin color but because of the very real history and context of the black church.
So the truth is all relative to one’s personal history? Or is it more related to what you find “plausible”? A lie, or a conspiracy theory, is no less what it is simply because of someone’s history, or your understanding of why they hold it. Now who’s not looking at the “actual words”?
I’m not denying that history, by any means. I’ve talked about personal and corporate repentance regarding race relations in this country. We need it; no denying that. But handwaving away these sorts of remarks and holding speakers to a different standard because of their their race (and that is what you’re doing; he’s black, therefore he’s had a tougher time) is just another form of racism based, indirectly but no less actually, on his skin color.
You want equality? Treat everybody the same. We call out Robertson in no uncertain terms when he speaks like this, even with the “hundreds of thousands” of words he speaks truthfully. The Left won’t do that to folks in their camp. That, to me, speaks loudly on who’s more ready for racial equality.