Kathleen Parker needs an education about race and religion. She uses her column today to argue that the president’s past association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a legitimate issue because it “shine(s) a light on how Obama’s character was formed.” That seems fair. But looking at the president’s character is not what people are concerned about. That has nothing to do with why the Wright issue is considered a taboo.
First of all, she’s looking at the wrong target. Yes, the issue is raised to cause political damage to the president. Therefore, it seems like he is the target. But he’s not the one being treated in a racist fashion. Jeremiah Wright, and by extension, the black church culture of our country are the ones being smeared here. Yes, you can take a few lines out of years and years of sermons and make Rev. Wright look bad or radical or un-American. But what you’re really saying is that anyone who belongs to a black church is unfit to be president. That black churches are radical and un-American. That’s both because the attackers are creating an unfair caricature of Rev. Wright, and because his views are nowhere near as unconventional in the black community as the attackers would have you believe. The idea that the government created AIDS to decimate the black community was once a quite common fear. That a preacher voiced that fear is really only reflective of what his community was feeling at that point in time. That may have been a paranoid belief, but are we going to now say that no one who was sitting in the pews is an American? That they’re all unqualified to be president?
What Kathleen Parker is missing is that you can’t make distorted attacks on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in isolation. If he can be attacked that way, so can many other preachers and churches. You delegitimize his church and you are attacking black churches all over the country.
Secondly, there’s a common understanding that you don’t attack people for their privately-held religious beliefs and practices. Lord knows we on the left could spend all day every day between now and November highlighting the strange doctrines of the Church of Latter Day Saints. We’re not going to do that. Sure, some individuals will do that. But the president isn’t going to do it. The DNC isn’t going to do it. Our Super PACs aren’t going to do it.
Didn’t the Mormon church help form Mitt Romney’s character?
It sure did. But if we’re going to say that’s not a legitimate way to have your character formed, we’ll be attacking all Mormons, not just Mitt Romney.
Good God. The Black Panthers must have hacked Rev. Wright’s Wikipedia page. When you look at it you see one picture of him chatting with Bill Clinton, and another of him tending to Lyndon Johnson as a Navy corpsman! How was this hate-filled anti-American radical allowed to get so close to two Presidents? How did he even get into the Navy?
The viciously anti-veteran, anti-Marine, anti-religion rants by people like Parker must end. Wright served two tours in Vietnam. He’s not some pointy-headed columnist who talks about freedom, he fought for it. Then he devoted his life to the church as a preacher. It’s disgusting how the right attacks our American heroes, our veterans and religious believers. I demand an apology!
Plus, freedom isn’t free, etc.
“But what you’re really saying is that anyone who belongs to a black church is unfit to be president.”
This is what I call the “colattoral damage” that distorted remarks do to others. Their disgust, or Hatred is so extreme that they do Not think of all the “innocent” people they insult to prove their sick opinion.
However, these people on the other side of reality Do want this collatoral damage because it “whistles” to it’s extreme base that WE get it, any body who goes to a black church is unfit to be president!
I’ve always been of the mind that
1. Given that Obama made the climax of the second act of his first book him weeping in the pews as he let Jesus into his heart after hearing the words of Wright’s sermon, and then named his second book after said sermon, that Wright was a legitimate target of inquiry in a way that a different run-of-the-mill minister wouldn’t be.
and
2. That Wright is a self-righteous dick, and his 9/11 bullshit was as fucked up as every other self-righteous dick who explained, for whatever reasons, why America had the attack coming. Maybe “America” in the abstract, but to reduce the casualties to abstracts as well is just sick. Did the random officeworkers who jumped out a skyscraper because they didn’t want to be burned alive “have that coming” too? It’s the same thing as Pat Robertson’s abhorrent gay bashing after Katrina.
But even I, having no particularly sympathy for Wright or his religion, recognized that there was nothing to the GOP and media frenzy over Wright that didn’t begin and end with nasty race baiting and a refusal to accept black ministry and spirituality as part of the American religious experience.
So fuck anybody who tries to start this all up again. And fuck Kathleen Parker and her shameless “poor Mitt Romney” propaganda.
I think you ought to take another look at his post-9/11 sermon, because it wasn’t offered in the spirit in which you are taking it.
For a man who was taking up the mantle of a harsh truth-teller, he was speaking from a place of total ignorance.
It was five days after 9/11, so I’m not going to blame him for not understanding the nature of al Qaeda at that time. But isn’t it funny how he (and others of that time) immediately leaped to the notion that they were the “faceless oppressed” striking back? They weren’t Afghans left to the mercy of the Taliban, they weren’t Palestinians left to the mercy of the occupation, they didn’t care one fucking bit about janitors and factory workers getting incinerated in Sudan.
They were a bunch of Saudis who wanted to enslave women and slaughter infidels. They zero common cause with the victims at Nagasaki or Cambodia or anywhere else.
Maybe so.
But his larger point was that before we go off in response and kill a bunch of people maybe we should reflect on why there are people in the world who want to hurt us so badly. That violence begets violence. Isn’t that the job of a Christian preacher at a time like that?
“But his larger point was that before we go off in response and kill a bunch of people maybe we should reflect on why there are people in the world who want to hurt us so badly.”
And the tone of Wright’s sermon was directed at the larger view. It’s sad but even many self identified “progressives” never took the time to look at the full context of the videos that were so appalling edited.
After I watched the fuller videos, not only did I see the injustice that was done to Rev. Wright, but I came to respect him as a brother in faith. Some of the spiritual leaders I respect most speak out against militarism and how it permeates the hearts and minds of Americans.
Outstanding post and comments Booman.
I am moved to post a segment from Dr. Strangelove.
But the Rev. Wright is the crazy one, right?
Great flick – one of my faves of all time.
I’m thinking of MLK, the Berrigans, Peter Maurin, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Emmanuel Charles McCarthy…
(Father McCarthy is still active.) There are plenty of inspiring people of faith who pointed out the evils of militarism. We live in times that are largely blind to this though.
I don’t know, personally I found Bush and Cheney’s response to 9/11 a lot more offensive than Rev. Wright’s. At any rate, you’re beating up a strawman here. Declaring that hatred begets hatred and violence begets violence is a hell of a long way from casting al Qaeda as the “faceless oppressed.”
Maybe he even knew more about the nature of al Qaeda at the time than you realize. I’m just guessing here, but if he knew something about the CIA and the Mujahideen, that might have been his whole point.
When we intervened to save Kuwait, I was a 20 year old college student with a not-too-comprehensive understanding of the region or the stakes. I struggled to decide what was right. Kuwait was part of the United Nations. They had a right to exist. How could we abandon them? But how was it in our interests to help them? And wouldn’t it invite terrorism as blowback? I really struggled with it, but I came down reluctantly as opposed to the war because it would incur risks far greater than the possible rewards. And 9/11 was a natural outgrowth of our decision to liberate Kuwait. That doesn’t make the people who attacked us justified in any way, but I suspected that the chickens would come home to roost, and they did. We committed violence in Iraq in 1990-91, and it begat violence in New York 10 years later. That doesn’t mean that we did the wrong thing. But we took the risk and paid the price. The idiots who attacked us paid the price, too. And hundreds of thousands of other people besides. Violence begets violence. I don’t think it’s wrong to point that out or to ask people to stop the cycle from time to time when it would be wise and prudent to do so.
It actually begat violence in New York 2 years later – that didn’t work so they came up with a more effective plan for 2011…
2001
The Mormon Church spends boatloads of tax-free money trying to keep rights away from gay people by influencing political processes. Romney needs to answer to this. If painting President Obama as being somehow “not like a normal American” is fair, then tying Romney to this hateful ignorant cult is also. I was raised Catholic and I will say that this church allowed terrible things to happen to children, and that this church still needs to pay a lot more for its wrongs. President Kennedy had to make his position clear, President Obama did, now Romney has to also.
Your comment must be about some controversy on Earth Nine because it’s not about what’s happening here on Earth One.
What’s happening here is really about Obama and it’s not a smear and it’s not racist though it is surely about Rev. Wright’s racist hatred of America and American whites.
And the Republicans fear to go there because, especially with the Martin affair (Thank you, liberals!) still simmering, they fear an outbreak of black on white violence that would spiral in a really ugly way as we get closer to the election.
Just another kind of dhimmitude, you might say.
Not a day goes by that some phoney so-called christian minister/preacher does not use the most vielest language to describe Pres Obama, black people, Democrats, and other brown skin people, and just about anyone whose IQ is above 90.
Somehow this is all acceptable.
And this clown Gaius Sempronius Gracchus certainly finds these excuses for human being acceptable.
Then there are the morons like “TiredOfThePhonies” who miss the point completely.