American Thinker | Kyle-Anne Shiver | Mar. 18, 2008
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I’m getting a bit queasy at the thought of Barack Obama’s tendency to know nothing about nothing when it comes to people and problems right under his nose. If he genuinely was not on to the racism of his own pastor, the guy who was like an “uncle” to him, how will he be able to see through the lying hypocrisy of IslamoFascists.
If even the heralded celebratory award his Church magazine gave to Louis Farrakhan, the infamous black Muslim and Nazi admirer, didn’t open the eyes of Mr. Gullible, what on earth would?
[…]
“Some of my fellow clergy don’t appreciate what we’re about. They feel we’re too radical.” Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama (Very first face-to-face meeting — Chicago, mid 1980’s*)
I thought I might have entered one of those political twilight-zone moments when I read this statement made by Obama Saturday, in response to reports on his pastor of twenty years:
“I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I’m not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there’s been this shift,” Obama said.
Begging the Senator’s pardon, but this condescending, schoolmarm admonition seems to me like the proverbial kettle calling the pot black.
Obama continues:
“If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked.”
Giving the Senator the benefit of the doubt here, I don’t think he means to imply with this statement that he knew an awful lot more, including the statements played in the videos in the press. Maybe that’s not what he meant to say, but that’s sure what it sounds like to me.
The fact of the matter remains that we journalists were not the ones sitting in Reverend Wright’s pews for 20 years, listening to his racially divisive, anti-American rhetoric.
Oh, my. Obama actually contends he wasn’t either.
So, what did he think Jeremiah Wright meant when he said that fellow African-American clergymen found him too radical for their understanding of the Christian faith?
What did Obama know and when did he know it?
Wright to Obama, in the same very first face-to-face meeting:
“Cops don’t check my bank account when they pull me over and make me spread-eagle against the car. These mis-educated brothers, like that sociologist at the University of Chicago, talking about ‘the declining significance of race.’ Now what country is he living in?” (Dreams from My Father; Barack Obama; p. 283)
Now, let’s think just a minute here. Barack Obama has steadily maintained that he knew absolutely nothing about Reverend Wright’s proclivity for mixing racial hatred and anti-American politics into his sermons at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Yet, incredibly, right there on page 293 of Obama’s Dreams from My Father, when Barack is describing the wondrous event of his own conversion in Wright’s church, he lets on otherwise.
“…Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House.”
We know now Reverend Wright’s opinion of Hiroshima and the Country who dropped that atomic bomb.
And apparently, Michelle Obama holds the same entirely negative opinion of America as her pastor.
Yet, Barack Obama maintains that even though his pastor and his wife have no pride in America, he himself has remained above all that division and strife, incredulously, because he never even knew about it.
And candidate Obama wants us to let him have a conversation with the Iranian president so they can work out something other than a big-bang solution for world peace.
. . . more
I must admit I’m somewhat astonished at the negative reaction to Wright, especially given the relative silence (and even support) for similar statements made by people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after 9/11 which went:
The targets are different this time (slave-holders and white racists as opposed to gays and liberals), but the rhetoric is the same.
Perhaps it’s Wright’s tone that so offends, but it’s a popular and widely held Christian view (although perhaps not Orthodox?) that God punishes nations through calamities. Author Steve J. Keillor in his book God’s Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, explores the possibility that numerous instances throughout history might be seen as a form of penalty on this nation for its sins (whatever they may be).
To his credit, Falwell apologized, and Wright needs to do the same. At the same time, I think it’s expecting a bit much to expect Obama to disown someone he’s known for years. We all have had members of our families (or even friends) who’ve held repugnant views that we shrug off or tolerate. It doesn’t necessarily mean we share those views.
Interesting how the apologists for the left react every time they are faced with a clear case of an individual or groups who are unmistakably guilty of the type of “sins” vehemently denounced and condemned by the left.
James proves, once again, that there is no such thing as self-criticism and universal standards from the left. The moment the elephant in the room (anyone on the annointed left) gets exposed, they change the subject and point to some radical element (always the fringe) from the “Christian right”, “Conservative right”, etc. etc. to justify the outrageouness and lunacy of “their team.”
This is the double-standard that the left always applies that exposes the left’s endemic hypocrisy and its lack of ethical and moral authority when it speaks to social and moral issues. Imagine this was a republican or conservative candidate embracing a racist hatemonger “family member” or “close friend” that used the pulpit to incite violence and spread lies and hatred towards different racial and religiuos group and curse his country. Would people like James excuse it away with soupy rationalizations and excuses? Would people like James dismiss it so cavalierly?
Chris, then McCain needs to publicly denounce preacher John Hagee for his rabid anti-Catholicism” and for calling the Church “The Whore of Babylon.
From mega-Church pastor Hagee:
Keep in mind that McCain publicly appeared with Hagee. If this is not a public endorsement of Hagee, I don’t know what is. Despite that, I might still vote for McCain (even though I really can’t stand Hagee).
All I’m saying is let’s be consistent in terms of what we call “hate-mongering” here. For the record, both Wright and Hagee need to be critiqued for their words. Nowhere did I say they shouldn’t.
Chris B. writes: “Imagine this was a republican or conservative candidate embracing a racist hatemonger “family member” or “close friend” that used the pulpit to incite violence and spread lies and hatred towards different racial and religiuos group and curse his country.”
I think this whole thing of endorsements, pastors, family members, or whatever, is way overblown on both sides. For some reason Obama is supposed to have some kind of “ownership” of Wright, even as he has publicly repudiated Wright’s statements? Likewise with McCain — now he “owns” Hagee’s anti-Catholic statements because Hagee endorsed him?
Look at the following quotation from ABC News:
This is an “unrelenting war”?? What, is Hagee firing mortar rounds at Catholic churches? Is he recruiting fundamentalists with sniper rifles to shoot at Catholics? No, Hagee is presenting a blunt theological belief about the Catholic Church, a belief that is common among a certain small set of fundamentalist Christians.
So, the problem for McCain is . . . what? These people shouldn’t vote for him?
McCain has already rejected such statements: “We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,” McCain said.
But then, all the pundits start asking whether that is “enough.”
Likewise with Obama. Here’s what he said:
But of course that is not “enough” either.
There is no evidence that McCain is anti-Catholic. There is no evidence that Obama is a racist. Anyone who strongly agrees with Hagee, or Wright, would have no reason to vote for either McCain or Obama, because both have publicly repudiated the statements of the people in question.
So I don’t know. Maybe McCain should punch Hagee in the face. Maybe Obama should throw rocks at Wright’s house. But probably even that would not satisfy those who are literally all about “political correctness.”
Frankly, I don’t care if McCain is endorsed by Hagee. I’m concerned about his position on the Iraq war. I don’t care is Obama is a member of Wright’s church. I’m concerned about his experience or the lack thereof. But all this stuff about who endorses whom or who knows whom is irrelevant to what are much more significant issues.
All of this stuff is just about spin and trying to gain political advantage. I don’t waste my time with it.
I don’t know which papers James K. was reading after 9/11, but all of the ones I read slapped Pat Robertson’s statement on the front page. He was roundly condemned for those statements by most anyone who was asked about them.
Rev. Wright teaches that America created AIDS to kill Africans, that America is the world’s greatest oppressor, etc., etc. He is clearly an anti-American bigot. This is not a trivial concern, because Obama didn’t just meet with the fellow on the campaign trail like McCain met with Hagee. Obama sat in this guy’s church, with his family, for many years. Wright was among his closest advisors. The two situations are not equivalent in any sense, and don’t tell me there wouldn’t be an outcry from the left if it turned out McCain had sat in Pat Robertson’s church for twenty years.
The biggest problem is that this incident has exposed Obama to be a liar. At first, he denied having heard the controversial statements when attending his church. Then in his speech, he acknowledged that he heard the controversial statements, but didn’t agree with them. But as Shiver demonstrates, his beliefs concerning Hiroshima are consistent with Wright’s, and if one looks at Obama’s foreign policy, he is clearly of the mindset that America is the culprit behind most of the world’s problems.
Another interesting aspect of this situation is that what Rev. Wright teaches is not much different from what is taught in many leftist colleges and universities. So the more “academic” leftists don’t seem to see the problem. But I’ll guarantee you that Wright’s crazy-talk doesn’t sit well with working-class whites in MI, OH, and PA.
In one of Canada’s national newspapers, the National Post, columnist Barbara Kay had an excellent assessment of Obama’s response to the Wright controversy. This can best be summed up by a letter I wrote to the Post on her column:
Barbara Kay’s metaphor did a brilliant job of capturing the essence of Obama’s attempt to excuse himself and his pastor.
In a reference to former President Bill Clinton’s statement about marijuana: “I smoked but I didn’t inhale” she wrote:
“Nobody can smoke institutionalized vulgarity for 20 years without inhaling.”
James K –
First of all, can you come up with any evidence for “silence” and “support” for this statement? I have read conservative publications for many years prior to and after 2001 and I recall pretty widespread condemnation.
Further, I think you misunderstand that an element of what he was trying to say – rather badly, I admit – is true. To put it bluntly, it is the tolerance of libertine lifestyles that is one of the main reasons the fanatical Moslems hate America so much. I support tolerance (but not celebration) of the aforementioned, but realize it comes at a price, which is that we are collectively put in the crosshairs.
Lastly, you picked up on the remarks of Wright – the chickens coming home to roost – which was the least problematic. Far more destructive is telling young people that AIDS was invented by the US government to kill blacks. If you are not revolted by that something is wrong with you. Obama has proven to be just another cynical pol in that he was willing to countenance such talk in order to gain “black” credentials.
Tom C asks: “First of all, can you come up with any evidence for “silence” and “support” for this statement?”
What conservative blogs are you reading? The idea that God randomly slaughters thousands for the deeds of “liberals” is hardly novel:
Tom writes: “it is the tolerance of libertine lifestyles that is one of the main reasons the fanatical Moslems hate America so much”
Besides the columns of Townhall.com, where are you getting the idea that Muslims hate America for its relentless interest in Britney Spears? Why don’t you check out former Muslim Tawfik Hamid’s posts?
They hated Christians and non-Muslims. I don’t see any qualifications in terms of their social or political beliefs.
In terms of Wright, I’ve already stated that I find some of his comments offensive. I’m not sure what else needs to be said.
James K. #8:
You appear to be waffling. In your initial post you indicated that you thought the press coverage of Wright was surprising, and that Robertson’s remarks concerning 9/11 were greeted with “silence.” You implied that the focus on Wright’s comments were unfair.
Unable to prove that Robertson’s remarks were met by silence, you evade Tom C.’s request for evidence by pointing out that some right-wing bloggers supported his statement. This, of course, is not evidence that Robertson was given a pass by the media.
Which is it? Do you really believe that nobody heard about Roberston’s statements (they were actually all over the papers)? I suspect you are just crying foul because the extremist of the hour happens to be a bigoted leftist minister tied to your favored political candidate, and you don’t like seeing him under scrutiny.
In your original post you also ignore completely the fact that Wright came up with crazy conspiracy theories, like the one that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to exterminate blacks. This is not some “widely held view” that God punishes nations through calamities, which you seem to imply was the worst of Wright’s problems. Instead, it is simple racist hate-mongering.
D. George: I think you missed my point or I didn’t state it clearly enough. It was Wright’s view that America deserves some form of penalty for its sins, in particular, that I don’t find all that unusual. This sentiment is echoed throughout evangelical blogs and literature, although the reasons as to why it deserves this punishment varies depending on the speaker. Hence, my relative surprise at such statements being labeled “anti-American” or “hate-mongering”.
I’m not disagreeing that his views on AIDS are paranoid, conspiracy-theorist and ludicrous. The MSM should take him to task for this just as they did with Robertson’s and Falwell’s statements regarding 9/11.
For the record, I have no particular allegiance to Obama. I don’t know at this point whether I’d vote for him or not. It’s just that I don’t find the views of his pastor to be that pivotal: rather, it’s Obama’s own views on taxation and the Iraq war that I find more important.
James writes:
Try demagogic. This involves more than just Rev. Wright.
James K
The idea that God punishes nations for the behavior of the citizens is actually not that far out. St. Paul said as much. So did Martin Luther King (he said the US was losing in Vietnam because God was punishing her for the sin of racial prejudice). These are speculations that are pretty hard to prove one way or another and don’t lead to serious practical consequences.
Wright and Obama both know that the US government did not invent AIDS and drugs to exterminate blacks. As Fr. Hans points out, Wright says these things (and Obama apparently looks the other way) in order to cultivate political power with a certain cross-section of society. Wright got his influence, made his money, enjoyed his notoriety, and probably is off to a comfortable retirement. Obama got his ‘street cred”. Bully for them. But there is no telling how many lives were steered off-course by this cynical demogoguery.
Speaking of cynical, Obama comparing a private, guilt-ridden comment of his white grandmother (to him no less!) with Wright’s ravings is bottom of the barrel. Especially when it was she who stuck around and raised him while his parents were off fulfilling themselves. As some commentator said, it’s common to hear about a politician who would “sell his grandmother”; it’s rare to actually see the transaction carried out in public.
James K:
This is what I mean. Your recent comment:
“The MSM should take him to task for this just as they did with Robertson’s and Falwell’s statements regarding 9/11.”
contradicts your prior comment:
“I must admit I’m somewhat astonished at the negative reaction to Wright, especially given the relative silence (and even support) for similar statements made by people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after 9/11 which went:…”
Your original complaint was that the spotlight is on Wright and wasn’t on Roberson, but then, being reminded that the spotlight was indeed on Robertson, you change the subject to point out that some conservative bloggers supported Robertson’s statement. This was, of course, immaterial to the topic.
After being reminded that Wright’s comments, motivated by bigotry and conspiracy theorizing, were far more outrageous than Robertson’s, it turned out that I simply misunderstood you or that your statements were not clear, and that of course you think the media should turn the spotlight on Wright.
So, this leaves me wondering, were you astonished at the negative reaction to Wright or not? And if you were not, why did you say you were?
Here’s what Rev. Wright’s opinions engender:
Obama’s Anger.
I think you should also read the following by Obama himself regarding Wright and issues of race.
Of note:
a) A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.
b) For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny
I don’t know, but these don’t read like the thoughts of a raging leftist.
What am I missing?
I don’t know, but these don’t read like the thoughts of a raging leftist.
No. A raging opportunist who has been leading a double life.
James asks:
You are missing a crucial point: ideas have consequences. Rev. Wright’s ideas are particularly harmful (despite your attempts to neutralize them by quoting Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston — a transparent attempt at moral equivalency and thus a side-step from Wright’s incendiary rhetoric and the destructive ideas they hide). Here you quote Obama to — what? –avoid engagement with Wright’s ideas that you implicitly defended? –to aid Obama in his distancing from Wright? –what?
And, since it seems ideas don’t really matter in your view (ideas are nothing more than competing sound bytes?), the second thing you miss is your own confusion in this discussion as D. George mentioned above:
James K. #15:
“I don’t know, but these don’t read like the thoughts of a raging leftist.
What am I missing?”
I don’t believe you are so naive. You should know that comments in a political damage-control speech are not the best way to judge someone’s positions on the issues. Are you arguing that, based on his speech, Obama is not a leftist? I’m just asking, because earlier you were all over the map on whether or not Wright’s speech should have provoked a negative reaction.
Ideas have consequences …
And what would the consequences be of an Obama White House if he is indeed merely acting as some sort of proxy for Wright? A rollback of welfare reforms? Affirmative action? Hiring quotas? Even worse, reparations payments to African-Americans for slavery?
What is Obama’s actual public record on these things?
If he supports them then, yes, there’s cause for concern. I don’t believe in corporate guilt or in quotas, and we certainly need the reforms we’ve enacted for welfare. If not, am I supposed to ignore his actual record and judge him according to what his pastor believes? Why? Do you suppose Obama is just biding his time, waiting to spring his trap on the White Man when he gets into office? This is absurd.
Wright’s language should, in all fairness, been critiqued by the same MSM who took Falwell and Robertson to task. I, too, thought it was inflammatory. I hear far worse things from many pulpits across this country, however, and barely anything is said about it. That is why I said I was surprised.
Fr. Hans is right – there’s no moral equivalency: Wright is less worrisome than the premillennial dispensationalists who have had much access to the current administration.
Fr. Hans writes: “You are missing a crucial point: ideas have consequences. Rev. Wright’s ideas are particularly harmful (despite your attempts to neutralize them by quoting Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston — a transparent attempt at moral equivalency and thus a side-step from Wright’s incendiary rhetoric and the destructive ideas they hide).”
Ideas have consequences, but certainly Wright’s entire career doesn’t consist of controversial or wacky statements.
Thirty years ago something like this would have been noted and largely forgotten. Today, in the age of the internet and 24-hour news, things like this take on a life of their own, and are repeated vastly more than their actual importance. I mean, it’s as if all Wright did the last 20 years was to say that the government caused AIDS, and all Obama did was sit in church listening to that.
And I don’t say that just because Obama is a Democrat. Look at the statements of Chrysostom about the Jews. But today many Orthodox churches are named after him, and as I recall a liturgy written by him is commonly used in the church. Ideas have consequences, but does that mean that the Orthodox church is anti-semitic, even if a few Orthodox are mistakenly led into bad attitudes by Chrysostom’s rhetoric? Does that mean that the Orthodox church should “repudiate” him? Of course not. I cut Chrysostom some slack, I cut the Orthodox church some slack. And I cut Obama some slack. Obviously the situations are not equivalent, but I think there is at least a family resemblance between the two situations.
James K:
“If not, am I supposed to ignore his actual record and judge him according to what his pastor believes?”
You shouldn’t, and you don’t need to. As mentioned above, Obama’s voting record (both in Illinois and in Congress) is public. You should look at it. It is very revealing. You may have heard that Obama filled out a questionaire that detailed his leftist beliefs. Yes, he wants quotas. He has also been quoted voicing support for racial discrimination through quotas in the past. Far more disturbing than his statements about quotas are his radical positions on abortion. Despite his handwriting being on the questionaire, his campaign denies he wrote the responses.
There is ambiguity in Obama’s rhetoric, but his beliefs may be discerned from the preponderance of his past votes and statements. He is clearly the most left-wing presidential candidate we have had since McGovern, and perhaps ever.
“Wright’s language should, in all fairness, been critiqued by the same MSM who took Falwell and Robertson to task.”
The MSM was just as critical of both Falwell and Robertson as they were of Wright.
“Wright is less worrisome than the premillennial dispensationalists who have had much access to the current administration.”
How is Wright less worrisome than the dispensationalists? There are a lot of myths about dispensationalists, such as that they actively try to bring about the apocalypse. To the contrary, they do not. They do support the state of Israel, but so do a lot of other folks. I’ll tell you one thing, the dispensationalists by and large are loyal to the United States, do not say “God damn America” from the pulpit, and do not spread lies like the one about the government creating AIDS to kill Africans. They are by and large not bigots, at least not in this day and age, but Wright is a proven bigot.
So, are you astonished at the negative reaction to Wright or not? If not, why did you say you were? I still can’t tell. You seem to be all over the map on this issue.
JamesK –
Good grief. When you are in a hole, quit digging. Where is your evidence that premillenial dispensationalists have “access to the current administration”? I think D. George caught you substituting cliches and sound bites for reasoning and you are trying to change the subject.
Look, neither Wright – who grew up in a comfortable, upper middle class neighborhood and went to the best school in town – nor Obama, believe this stuff. They are cynical and demogogic. Ivy league smooth when it is required and angry black nationalist when that is required.
Neither D. George, Fr. Hans, or I said that the “White Man” was going to suffer from Obama. You put those words in our mouths because you wouldn’t face up to your inconsistency. Herewith the evidence:
D. George
The biggest problem is that this incident has exposed Obama to be a liar.
Tom C
A raging opportunist who has been leading a double life.
Fr. Hans
Try demagogic. This involves more than just Rev. Wright.
And in terms of who suffered from this sort of rhetoric:
Tom C.
But there is no telling how many lives were steered off-course by this cynical demogoguery.
Fr. Hans
You are missing a crucial point: ideas have consequences. Rev. Wright’s ideas are particularly harmful…
In short, we three were arguing that the incident shows Obama to be dishonest, and that the victims of Wright’s rhetoric were the (mostly young) blacks that he supposedly represents. You keep trying to portray us as “angry white men” who don’t want a black man in office. I’m hoping that you don’t mean to do this on purpose, but stumble into it by relying on sound bites and talking points (ala Dean Scourtes of blessed cyber-memory).
Samuel Johnson said “before you set out to think, clear your mind of cant”. You would do well to consider.
Mr. Holman #20:
Yes, we should judge Obama by his record and his beliefs. As I’ve mentioned above, it is possible to do this, but his obfuscation of his political philosophy through nonspecific rhetoric makes the task difficult. It would be helpful if Obama would come out and name the specific “controversial” remarks of Wright that he disagrees with, but he doesn’t seem inclined to do so. I believe it would be counterproductive to his attempts to obfuscate his real positions on the issues.
I am not an expert in Chrysostom, so I will let someone else respond concerning his treatment of the Jews and the Jewish religion. I will say that, unfortunately, I have witnessed anti-Jewish attitudes in some Orthodox churches, especially those with large populations of recent immigrants from the Middle East. But this certainly had nothing to do with Chrysostom’s teaching, or with the doctrine of the Church. In my opinion, it was clearly attributable to the dhimmitude, or subservience to Islam, of the Christians from the Middle East, which seems to result in the adoption of certain political and social prejudices that are similar to those of the Muslims.
Jim writes:
Of course not, which is why examining the well from which those statements are drawn is a prudent thing to do, and which also reveals how his ideas, rather than fostering black success, may actually hinder it. See: The peculiar theology of black liberation.
References to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or in your case St. John Chrysostom, have no bearing on Rev. Wright’s ideas — or of Barack Obama’s defense of them.
Tom C asks: Where is your evidence that premillenial dispensationalists have “access to the current administration”?
Mostly from the words of other conservative evangelicals(not liberal theologians). What sort of evidence would you like me to have? I’ve never been invited in to the Oval Office.
James K
So this is the sum total of your “evidence”? A guy named Bill Barnwell writes an article on the blog of a guy named Lew Rockwell (president of the ___well club?) and includes this sentence:
Dispensational preachers and lobbyists have the ear of the White House and are directly trying to influence foreign policy…
I’m taking it you are not a lawyer.
Okay, Tom. How about this one?
Glen Chancy was a frequent conservative contributor to this board (although I haven’t seen anything from him lately). If you have any doubts about his credibility, feel free to ask Fr. Hans.
Hence, my concern when Bush openly meets with evangelical leaders like James Dobson . What is he discussing with them, and why does the Commander-in-Chief need to discuss foreign policy with the likes of Dobson?
But this thread is going off the rails. Suffice it to say that I don’t claim that Bush is completely subservient to the evangelical community, especially since both him and Rove have been noted as making disparaging remarks about them in private. I don’t suspect that Obama would fall completely behind everything Wright says, either.
This is why I don’t get excited about politics. Most politicians are opportunists who will say and do anything to get elected. They’re generally a dishonest, greedy group, so I take what they say with a grain of salt.
As far as Wright and Hagee and Dobson and Robertson: who cares? They all say insane things in front of their congregations and on the radio every week. If you’re going to critique one of them as destructive and bigoted, critique them all, though, otherwise you’re setting up two sets of moral standards to benefit whomever you happen to agree with.
James writes:
If your ox is gored, set up another ox, demand that it be gored too, otherwise is just not fair!
Look James, a critique of Rev. Wright doesn’t require a critique of Robertson or Rev. Falwell. Neither does a critique of Robertson or Falwell require a critique of Wright.
And no, it doesn’t create two sets of moral standards. In fact, if you would expend a bit more effort, you would see that you can’t critique Wright in the same way you would critique the other two men, because they have very different ideas.
And no, no one is under any obligation to provide an equal time critique of Falwell to “balance” one of Wright (although you are free to provide one if you want, as Glen Chancey’s example makes clear).
What you essentially think is that no substantive critique should exist at all, or where it does all ideas have to be relativized so that no one idea can be deemed better than another. It’s that skewed (and intellectually bankrupt) notion of fairness again.
Fr. Hans writes: “References to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or in your case St. John Chrysostom, have no bearing on Rev. Wright’s ideas — or of Barack Obama’s defense of them.”
In one sense you are correct. But I think it is important to develop a consistent critique and understanding that cuts across all of these situations, and other similar situations.
Look, to cut to the chase, we’re talking about situations in which religious people express outrage over something or other. Might I offer a suggestion that outrage does not put anyone in his or her best light, whether you, me, Wright, Falwell, Robertson or Chrysostom, or the author of Psalm 137 who advocated bashing the babies of Babylon against the rocks. Might I suggest that such statements need to be understood in the totality of the historical context in which they are uttered. Might I even suggest that we may have to forgive such statements as examples of the weakness of human nature, even if the people in question have not yet come to that understanding.
Hello JamesK –
I have to go with Father Hans on this one. I’ve been as critical of Evangelicals as anyone on the Right. But the fact that Evangelical leaders often are wrong in their foreign policy prescriptions does not somehow magically alleviate the fact that Obama’s pastor is a fruitcake.
The idea that AIDS is some kind of super bio weapon is nuts. A lot of his other ideas of black liberation, black socialism, the instrumentality of God as a useful adjunct to black revolution, etc. are also nuts.
Conversely, simply because he’s nuts, doesn’t mean that Dobson and Falwell aren’t dangerous on their own terms. I’m perfectly capable of recognizing the shortcomings of both sides of a tilted debate, but no one (as Father Hans made clear) is required to deal with both sides at once.
Sometimes, of course, I do find it necessary to hit both sides. This is a criticism I recently leveled at the Orthodox:
#29 Jim Holman
If you consider Chrysostom’s comments about Jews in the “totality of the historical context in which they are uttered” they are not nearly as bad as Wright’s words.
I don’t think you (and certainly not James K) are sincerely engaging the question of who suffers from AIDS conspiray theories and the like. It is not a middle class white guy like me. It is the very low income blacks that are supposedly being championed. Thomas Sowell’s words here are right on target:
#30 Glen
I disagree that Wright is “nuts”. I don’t think he really believes these things, but he is willing to say them to gain a following, money, and notoriety. Big difference. The impression has been created that he led life of suffering that might excuse rhetorical excess, but the truth is that he had a comfortable middle class upbringing.
Tom C writes: “If you consider Chrysostom’s comments about Jews in the “totality of the historical context in which they are uttered” they are not nearly as bad as Wright’s words.”
Well, not now, but back in the day I wouldn’t be surprised if Chrysostom’s words were used to justify all sorts of unfortunate attitudes and possibly even actions. Again, I cut Chrysostom some slack because of the historical context. Were he alive today I’m quite sure what we would hear a very different message.
Tom C: “I don’t think you (and certainly not James K) are sincerely engaging the question of who suffers from AIDS conspiracy theories and the like. It is not a middle class white guy like me. It is the very low income blacks that are supposedly being championed.”
First, as far as I know, Wright is pastor of a large congregation, but not a national leader. I don’t think his rhetoric has penetrated very far into the black community. Let me put it this way: the first time I heard that AIDS was a government conspiracy was when Wright’s comments became public. In that sense all of the recent discussion of Wright has propagated his comments far more than he himself ever did.
But other than perhaps engendering an anti-government, racist view of things in some unsophisticated members of his congregation, I’m not sure what damage is being done. Look at the subtext of Wright’s comments. He’s basically saying “if you get AIDS, you’re a sucker, playing into the hands of racists who want to destroy you and your community.” Whatever else the comments did, they certainly were intended as a disincentive to get AIDS. It’s unfortunate that he chose to present that message inside of a racist package.
But Wright’s scope of influence is relatively small. Compared with Robertson and Falwell, he’s small potatoes. Falwell was head of a national organization. Robertson has his own TV network, and was a former presidential candidate. Both have their own universities. Prior to the recent controversy few had ever heard of Wright; everyone had heard of Falwell and Robertson. But for Obama most of us never would have heard of Wright.
Falwell’s and Robertson’s scope of influence is vastly greater than Wright’s ever was. Their affirmation, broadcast over a nationally-distributed TV show, that gays, lesbians, unbelievers, etc., “helped” 9/11 happen was really a very personal attack on millions of people in the country. Those comments were dangerous; Wright’s comments were wacky. To their credit Falwell and Robertson apologized, after a torrent of public criticism. But one wonders how many millions of people watching the program at that time nodded their heads in agreement.
Wright’s comments were absolutely wrong, and worse than that — stupid. But Wright is a mouse in comparison with whom Falwell and Robertson are elephants. I don’t know about you, but when I’m walking around the jungle, considering possible risks, I worry a heck of a lot more about what the elephants are doing than what the mouse is doing.
Juan Williams offers some very cogent thoughts about this topic on the anniversary of MLKs’ death.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726732176388295.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries