Wright's radicalism, again
Thursday March 20, 2008
Categories: Democrats
Oh brother, this guy is the gift that keeps on giving to Obama's opponents. Given that Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright gave over a couple of pages in his newsletter last year to a top Hamas official to opine about the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Was the LA Times radical in running the story to begin with, since the opinion piece originated there? Is the plight of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government a radical concern? If the LA Times thought it was fine for someone from the Hamas government to explain his position, why is it wrong for a church to follow that lead?
Barack, call my office if you're still interested in that VP slot.
-- Hillary
Well, I think the LAT was wrong to have given that terrorist a mouthpiece, but anyway, oughtn't churches be run by a different set of standards than newspapers? Both are institutions near and dear to my life, but still.
Anyway, as a purely political matter, this kind of thing is going to be hard to explain to voters. "Hey, did you know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama's church published a column by a top Hamas official?" You see the problem. I talked to a friend just the other day, a college-educated person who is not political (but who votes), and she was genuinely surprised when I told her that no, Barack Obama is not a Muslim. I honestly don't understand why this meme persists, but it's out there bigtime.
If the LA Times thought it was fine for someone from the Hamas government to explain his position, why is it wrong for a church to follow that lead?
Because the LA Times runs the other side of the story nor do they give it their imprimatur. I doubt the Reverend Wright solicited or would even accept a response from the Israeli government, and we all know by now where he falls on this issue.
Apparently, the public reaction to Obama's speech by working class Democrats (aside from the pundits and bloggers) has been largely negative.
The real sticking point, I think, is that people don't believe Obama when he says he didn't know about Wright's extremist ideas and actions. It's just not a credible statement. If he's dishonest on this, why would Senator Obama be honest with us about anything else?
According to polls cited by Larison:
"McCain ties Obama in Massachusetts right now, leads in Missouri by fourteen, leads in Ohio by seven, and is effectively tied in Minnesota and trails by just four in Wisconsin. Oh, yes, and McCain leads in Kentucky by a measly 36..."
If the general election campaign were to begin today, Obama would be busy trying to shore up support in Massachusetts and Minnesota, the only two states that went for McGovern back in '72! Not a good sign.
It occurs to me that Senator Obama engaged in a kind of bait-and-switch in his speech. The issue most people got angry about wasn't "Race in America", it was Senator Obama's personal and long-term relationship with a minister who comes across as a foaming, bigoted, nutcase. By shifting the focus away from "me and Jeremiah" to "all of us in America", the Senator may have wowed his supporters and some of the moderate middle in the short term, but set himself up for another round of "what did you know, and when did you know it?" questions later on.
Looking at this latest situation, that time may have come already. Regardless of what radicals may think about Hamas, most Americans do not care for organizations that essentially call for the obliteration of "The Jews". (Yes, Daniel, I know that you can split hairs fine enough to claim that's not what they are saying, but you have to play "How many Kassen rockets can be launched from the head of a pin" kind of games to get there. Pardon me if I do not wish to play.)
So now, someone in the press is pretty much going to have to ask Senator Obama just where he stands on the issue of Hamas, and why his church...
Victor Davis Hanson has suggested over at NRO's "Corner" that party of Senator Obama's problem is the rather rarified and elite world in which he has lived for years. Nobody at Harvard, or other such elite places he's circulated in, would ask a black man for an accounting regarding support for Hamas, for various reasons. It is interesting that in some ways Senator Obama is coming across more and more as a disconnected Ivy League elitist, along the lines of George Herbert Walker Bush at the supermarket scanner...
And to head off any potential flames, I'm not saying that Senator Barack Hussein Obama ever supported, or supports now, Hamas or any other such group. I am saying that he's been moving in a rather insular world for some years now; most people would not regard meeting Bill Ayres and/or Berandine Dohrn as something to be desired, for example, but in the elitist world of upper-class radical chic, it appears the Leonard Bernstein cocktail party for the Black Panthers is still going on. Senator Obama may have just been over in the corner watching it all go by, but..he was still there, and didn't walk out the metaphorical door when people started saying really stupid and obnoxious stuff. So he gets to explain things again, I predict.
I'm looking forward to all the fun we're going to have parsing every parish newsletter and homily from John McCain's Baptist church in Phoenix.
Bless,
Doug
Actually Pyrrho, Massachusetts was the only state to back McGovern in 1972. Minnesota was the only state to back *Mondale* in *1984*. I understand ... easy to mix up 49-state Republican landslides. If this continues, we may have another to throw into the mix.
I am curious why there hasn't been more discussion of McCain's religious faith and core moral beliefs. What are we to make of his claiming to be an Episcopalian for most of his life, and then saying he has become a Baptist, without I believe having actually been baptized as a Baptist?
Bless,
Doug
Good luck on that project, or anything similar to it, Doug. Short of finding a connection to the Aryan Nation, I do not think it will provide much ammunition. I mean, come on, Hamas is an organization that makes al Fatah look reasonable by comparison. Americans are just not going to find understandable the presence in a Christian church newsletter of writings from a group that "celebrates" thier electoral victories in part by dragging opponents out of their houses and machinegunning them in the street, right in front of their wife and kids.
Come on, Doug, can you find any justification for an article by Hamas in a church publication?
Doug: who cares? He doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve and there is no evidence that McCain has had any sort of intimate relationship with a man of faith for 20 years who despised whitey and America.
Count me among the Obama supporters who is supremely disgusted and disappointed, who will be staying home in November.
I don't even understand how Obama is able to even continue on. Can you imagine if McCain or even Clinton had been members of a church run by a white supremacist who blamed everything on black people for 20 years? It'd be over and they'd be run out of the party, if not the country. Why is it different when the person is black?? I am not down with racism no matter who is doing the ism.
And before you compare Wright to Hagee or Robertson or Falwell, bear in mind that 1) McCain or Bush never belonged to their churches, they merely received their approval and endorsements and 2) their endorsements of said men are one of the principal reasons I did not vote for Bush nor will I vote for McCain. Why should I vote for Obama then? He's even worse than Bush as far as shady associations go.
Phil writes:
And before you compare Wright to Hagee or Robertson or Falwell, bear in mind that 1) McCain or Bush never belonged to their churches, they merely received their approval and endorsements...
I agree with this and would like to point out that for the exact same reason there is no justification in attacking Senator Obama for any similar approval/endorsements, such as the one he received from Louis Farrakhan. Obama did not ask for Farrakhan's support, therefore it is not a direct issue. The same would hold true for any hypothetical support from Sharpton or Jesse Jackson; so long as the endorsement wasn't solicited, it is a one-way relationship. This is not to absolve Jeremiah Wright from his connection with Farrakhan, but merely to point out the difference between a solicited and an unsolicited endorsement.
I am curious why there hasn't been more discussion of McCain's religious faith and core moral beliefs. What are we to make of his claiming to be an Episcopalian for most of his life, and then saying he has become a Baptist, without I believe having actually been baptized as a Baptist?
Well, there hasn't been much discussion of McCain at all since the Texas primary, for obvious reasons. But I don't think there's a lot to uncover re: McCain's religious beliefs. I don't think he has many of them, to be honest. He's more of a Stoic, I think, than a Christian. Anyway, we probably will hear more about them later in the campaign, but I don't think they're likely to be all that controversial politically.
I have a black friend who has made a habit of ridiculing Obama as "Black Jesus." Thanks to the Rev. Mr. Wright, I came up with a good line to answer him with, "Black Jesus has been transfigured into Black McGovern."
Does Rev. Wright know what Hamas thinks about Christianity? I know they hate me because I'm a Jew, but I doubt they would like me much more if I were a Christian. In fact, they don't think much of most Moslems. I don't think anyone can explain this away.
Doug:
Because McCain is not an overtly religious man and has exhibited a clear discomfort with "the religious right." This might be a problem for various other reasons (and believe me, religious-conservative Republicans chewed over them for months). But it means that looking for a hatemongering pastor in his background is like looking for lions in the Scottish Highlands, making calls for "investigating his pastor" to seem kinda reflexive.
"What are we to make of his claiming to be an Episcopalian for most of his life, and then saying he has become a Baptist, without I believe having actually been baptized as a Baptist?"
What do we make of it? Hmmm. Well, one, a person is not baptized as a Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic. One is baptized by water and in the name of the Holy Trinity. Pretty much any church that accepts baptism accepts that as a valid, once in a lifetime event. Some denominations reject baptism by water and the Trinity, but they really don't pertain to the question at hand.
If McCain had been baptized, and then went to become a Baptist, he would have made (if I recall the phrase correctly) a Profession of Faith.
Should people check out McCains church for kookiness. You bet. Will they find kookiness? I would take that bet, and I'm NOT a McCain supporter.
Oops, I meant to write that I would NOT take that bet. In any event, it seems rather desperate to point fingers at McCain in a discussion of Obama/Wright. I mean, McCain as been in public service in one form or another since Vietnam. He is a known quanity so to speak. At least his public life is. If there is any trash on McCain, it won't come from his church for cryin' out loud. It would come, if it exists at all which I doubt, from his personal life. And if it exists, Hillary will have a file on it already. Looks like she'll get the nom. so we'll find out.
McCain is a good and decent man and I doubt he associates with kooks. There are a lot of "normal" (i.e. non-Falwell Baptists) out there. I have faith in McCain's character, though I probably won't vote for him, because I'm a Democrat.
Unless Obama is nominated.
Then I vote Red.
If he wanted to be this Jews president, if he really cared, he should have walked when that was published. His church consorted with people who want Americans dead, for crying out loud.
My predictions:
1) The superdelegates bolt and throng towards Hilary.
2) Sharpton throws a fit and some blacks stay home.
3) Most blacks still vote Democrat because they always liked the Clintons and they won't want to help a Republican win.
But if Obama is nominated, me the liberal-to-moderate Democrat Jew will have no problems voting for John McCain. The man has ethics.
AD: All I can say is, I doubt you're aware of what is written about the Middle East in some of the American Arab Christian medias. This showing up in the LA Times, or the TUCC newsletter, doesn't surprise me.
Bless,
Doug
Phil: "who cares? He doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve and there is no evidence that McCain has had any sort of intimate relationship with a man of faith for 20 years who despised whitey and America."
Well, Obama doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve either. If he did, so many folks wouldn't think he's a Muslim. My comment was a bit sarcastic; I'm genuinely concerned about the precedent Wright sets (and the Mormon issue for Romney before that) of requiring a public scouring of a candidate's religious affiliations and beliefs. On what reasoning should McCain's religious affiliations not be similarly examined? Lord knows I don't have any intention of doing it, but I wasn't (and am not) really interested in Obama's religious affiliations either.
Who knows what might have been published about, say, Hispanic immigrants by some McCain parish newsletter. Probably something that could be as easily, and inappropriately, characterized as "despising immigrants" as Wright's material has been characterized as "despising whitey."
Bless,
Doug
Phil: "I did not vote for Bush nor will I vote for McCain. Why should I vote for Obama then?"
To quote Elrond, your list of allies grows thin.
Sadly, we're down to Obama, McCain or perhaps possibly Clinton, though I doubt it.
Bless,
Doug
McCain is a good and decent man
He left his wife of many years for a younger, blonder, non crippled woman who just happened to have lots of money at a time when he wanted to start a political career. His wife stole drugs from a charity and never got any real punishment. Kinder, gentler FDA or senator husband using his clout?
They all have feet of clay.
Steve
Max and all:
The reason I bring up McCain is because of a thought that's been bouncing around in my head since reading Terry Mattingly's excellent Get Religion blog on the coverage of Wright and Obama. Terry's astutely pointed out how much of the discussion has been about race, and how little has been about religion. (I don't think this blog has had this problem, of course.)
The uniqueness of the black church (heck, just that we can say "black church" in a way that we would never say "white church") has meant that there are questions here about church that we can hammer Obama on, because in the black church people talk about blackness in addition to church. But the precedent we may have established seems to me to be one that says, "If I consider the faith leaders in your religious tradition too extreme, then you will be deemed unacceptable as a serious candidate for the presidency."
I may well be guilty of this myself. I admit I would have had trouble voting for Romney because of his Mormonism, even though TUCC's black liberation theology doesn't really bother me that much. It bothers me, but no more so than other religious traditions with which I disagree, like much Evangelicalism.
I don't expect there's anything in McCain's religious beliefs that will cause much of an uproar, because as posters say he doesn't seem a particularly religious man. But what does that say about our country, that someone affiliated with an outspoken tradition is going to struggle to become president?
Obviously Bush's religious affiliations hurt him with certain portions of the electorate. I have a feeling if a Catholic or Orthodox ran for president today, we'd have a lot of public airing of the controversial positions and statements of leaders in both of those traditions.
I know I'm not representative, but the anti-science ideas of the young earth creationists are vastly more troubling to me than the anti-science ideas of the HIV-conspiracy theorists. I expect that McCain's religious beliefs will be questioned, and that there are things in his religious history that could hurt him on the margins in unexpected ways, with select niche populations.
As a religious journalist myself, I'm torn about this. It leads to plenty of interesting happenings I can comment on. But is this something we really want in American politics?
Bless,
Doug
I know I'm not representative, but the anti-science ideas of the young earth creationists are vastly more troubling to me than the anti-science ideas of the HIV-conspiracy theorists.
Troubling intellectually, or troubling in terms of their practical effect? If the former -- well, that's a reasonable position, albeit one with which I disagree. If the latter -- are you kidding?
Young-earth creationism (which I already have compared intellectually to Holocaust denial on these threads, just to establish my bona fides) is a position that has little immediate potential to concretely harm anyone. It's a threat to right reason and a sign of anti-intellectual type of fundamentalism, of course ... but at the end of the day it's otherwise a harmless eccentricity. HIV-conspiracy theories not only pose the same threat to the whole "brain muscle," also should cause their believers to tune out elementary public-health warnings and messages about chastity and sexuality, and thus threaten their lives and the lives of others.
Actually, rereading that last post of mine in the third person, rather than writing it in the first, I realize I was needlessly snarky in one place, and not to a man who deserves my contempt.
"Are you kidding?" is far too acerbic, bordering on saracastic a way to put what I was saying. And it was not provoked. I apologize for my manner.
Nevertheless, I stand by the substance of the post, on the difference between a disagreement that I can fathom and a disagreement I cannot. But I could have found a better way to put it than "are you kidding?"
Victor,
Fair point. I used to work in public health and safety, including work with inner city HIV/STD prevention. The immediate health risk posed by black conspiracy theories is real.
More broadly, I'm concerned about the broad impact socially of scientific illiteracy in an age where technological developments will drive changes with profound moral and ethical consequences.
Inner city minority congregations are just one of the more egregious and obvious examples of rampant scientific illiteracy. I think young earth creationism is broader and ultimately more significant marker and driver of misplaced skepticism of basic science at a time when we need every intelligent American capable of developing a basic grasp of science to do so.
Hope that context helps.
Bless,
Doug
This is why I'm voting for Cthulhu for President. Why go with the lesser of two evils? We're all hamsters beneath his talons, and supporters will be the last to be driven mad and eaten!
Cthulhu is pro-life because he is against abortion, warfare, and population control! Given that we're his food supply, all of these issues are non-starters for him, so Catholics can flip the level for Cthulhu in good conscience!
As to the deficit, Cthulhu will have no problem dealing with Congress, as they will be the first to be eaten. The budget deficit will shrink drastically once Cthulhu cuts unnecessary spendings like Defense, Welfare and Social Security. Mass support of Cthulhu will raise the its awareness of the need to take control of our suffering country, and should lead to its return. The Great Cthulhu will awaken in time to take its presidential oath.
As to domestic policy, the Great Cthulhu will not give humans that kind of decision over their own fate. They are far too weak to be able to handle that kind of pressure. Ever notice how your potential for destruction increases when your in that state? Clearly, many here prefer slavery to some God figure...why not Cthulhu?
Sponsored by Campus Crusade for Cthulhu: It Found Me!
Holy Cow!! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As a big financial supporter of TUCC, Obama MUST have known about the Hamas article in the TUCC publication.
If he doesn't even know what's going on his own church (to which he contributed $28,000 in 2005-2006), how's he going to keep on top of the Federal Government let alone the White House as President?
But does anyone REALLY think he didn't know about this stuff, including Wright's incendiary sermons? How could he not know? This guy was the local State senator for 8 years. He was an important community activist. He knew south Chicago like the back of his hand. And he didn't know about Wright? C'mon, Barack, try selling us the Brooklyn Bridge, why don't you.
What really annoys people about Barack's speech on Tuesday was the way he insulted our intelligence! Maybe we didn't all go to Harvard Law, but we're not as dumb as you think.
"...in the elitist world of upper-class radical chic, it appears the Leonard Bernstein cocktail party for the Black Panthers is still going on."
Anti Dhimmi, you made my morning!
We should all move to Rush's world where we are all past the racial thing. Racism just doesnt exist, except at TUCC.
Steve
Steve: You miss the point. We ALL understand that racism exists everywhere. We don't need any politician -- even a gifted speaker like Obama -- to lecture us on this as if we were dolts. You don't need to be a former president of the Harvard Law Review to understand that there are racial tensions in this country.
The question is: how are EACH OF US, in our own way, going to improve the situation? As an active and financially generous member of TUCC, Obama had an opportunity to shape the racial dialogue in his community. What did he do? The evidence shows that he did nothing. Instead, he was an "enabler" of the kind of scab-scratching exploitation of racial resentments that the Reverend Dr. Wright is an expert at. As a wannabe "post-racial unifier" Senator Obama has absolutely no credibility here.
Let Senator Obama deliver all the fine speeches he wants but the questions remain: Why join Wright's racialist church when there were other Christian churches in that area? Why did you "enable" Wright for so long? Why didn't you try to improve the racial dialogue in your church when you had a chance?
What did [Obama] do? The evidence shows that he did nothing. Instead, he was an "enabler"...
It's interesting that Oprah had the good sense to disassociate herself from the very same church. But capitalists usually make better decisions than socialists...
Do you realize, Rod, that this is the "Mousa Abu Marzook" who provided the seed money for the startup of the Holy Land Foundation, don't you?
I'd really like to know what was so incindiary about wrights language. if you read any noam chomsky or howard zinn (pick up just about any book) and you will find many references to the USA, or israel, as a terrorist state. this is mainstrem opinion to many of us.
the statements about the chickens coming home to roost have parallels to pat buchanon's statements that they attacked us here because we're over there. link here:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6630
the god damn america statement have their roots in the books of the old testament prophets that i guess christian fundamentalists just don't understand.
it's my opinion is this is the race card being played through any opening the racists can find. that's not unusual and I expect to see a whole lot more of it before the election.
i also think republicans are naive if they think these tactics will go unanswered. expect soon that unaffiliated groups will launch a campaign to educate catholics on remarks by john hagee on the catholic church. expect also the american public to be educated on all the other comments of other fundamentalists lunatics.
this type of stuff has no place in an election in 2008. but once started it can't go unanswered.
Obama's speech did not begin to address the concerns of average working class white Democrats. He's obviously lying about "what he knew when" about Wright's extremist positions.
Unless he was the most oblivious man in the world, after 17 years in Wright's church, he should have been able to predict almost every word that came out of his pastor's mouth. If Obama had disassociated himself from his church after a few years (say 4 or 5) this would be more forgivable. 17 years is a long time to be a "fellow traveler" with a congregation that advocates extremist positions and beliefs.
I'll take Wright's steadfast and honest faith, standing on the blunt shoulders of the Hebrew Prophets, over most of our 'respectable religion' churches any day of the week.
The only people who call Wright a racist are those who don't know anything about him besides the pre-packaged sound-bytes spoonfed by cable news and right-wing web wackos.
Grownups know how to research before forming an opinion.
If McCain had been baptized, and then went to become a Baptist, he would have made (if I recall the phrase correctly) a Profession of Faith.>>
Hmmm. No. Baptists do not accept infant baptism, and require baptism by immersion of any persons who wish to become Baptist, even if that means that they are, by just about every other church's standards, rebaptizing them. Your condescension is even less becoming when you don't have your facts straight.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.