Healing the Wounds of Race (by Jim Wallis)
It has simmered throughout this campaign, and now race has exploded into the center of the media debate about the presidential race. Just when a black political leader is calling us all to a new level of responsibility, hope, and unity, the old and divisive rhetoric of race from both blacks and whites is rearing its ugly head to bring down the best chance we have had for years of finally moving forward.
And that is indeed the real issue here. A black man is closer to possibly becoming president than ever before in U.S. history. And this black man is not even running as "a black man," but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics. But a new kind of politics and a new face for political leadership is deeply threatening to all the forces that represent the old kind of politics in the U.S. And all the rising focus on race in this election campaign has one purpose and one purpose alone—to stop Barack Obama from becoming president of the United States.
Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world. He must not win or lose because of the old politics of race in the U.S. That would be a tragedy for all of us.
The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons. Wright is the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama, while affirming the tremendous work his church has done in his city and around the nation, has condemned the most controversial remarks of his pastor. But the whole controversy points to the enormous gap in understanding between the mainstream black community in the U.S. and the experience of many white Americans. And that is what we are going to have to heal if we are ever to move forward.
Here is what I mean.
There is a deep well of both frustration and anger in the African-American community in the U.S. And those feelings are borne of the concrete experience of real oppression, discrimination, and blocked opportunities that most of America's white citizens take for granted. African Americans across the spectrum of income and success will speak personally to those feelings of frustration and anger, when white people are willing to listen. But usually we are not. In 2008, to still not comprehend or seek to understand the reality of black frustration and anger is to be in a state of white denial - which, very sadly, is where many white Americans are.
The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told. And, black preachers have had the pastoral task of nurturing the spirits of people who feel beaten down week after week. Strong and prophetic words from black church pulpits are often a source of comfort and affirmation for black congregations. The truth is that many white Americans would indeed feel uncomfortable with the rhetoric of many black preachers from many black churches all across the country.
But if you look beyond the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear), and actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.
Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope. And nobody represents that shift more than Barack Obama. There is a generational shift occurring within the black community itself. This shift is between an older generation that is sometimes perceived to be stuck in the politics of victimization and grievance, and a younger generation that believes that opportunity and progress are now possible—not by ignoring, but by being committed to actually changing the facts of oppression and discrimination.
Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity. Obama's attraction to many who are white, especially a new generation, demonstrates the promise of a new racial politics in the U.S. But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African-American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church, where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger. Obama has never chosen to talk about race in the way that Rev. Jeremiah Wright does on the video clips that keep playing, and indeed has never played "the race card" at any time in this election. It's been his opponents that have, especially the right-wing conservative media machine that wants the U.S. to believe he is secretly a Muslim and from a "racist" church.
This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide and truly bless America.
Add to:
Category: Elections, Race
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The pastor's comments, such as "God damn America", were taken out of context. Mr. Wallis does a good job of trying to restore that context for us in this article. But in politics, quotes taken out of context are now the norm. And the "headline" news programs of our day do nothing to but contribute to the problem. I'm afraid were only in for more of this.
Pastors need to realize that just because you're behind a pulpit or on the platform doesn't mean you can say things any way you want. Its time to STOP the HATE that comes from our pulpits. That includes remarks damning other religions, atheists, homosexuals, and other races. If you can't preach without hate, you have no business preaching at all.
Posted by: cernowain greenman | March 18, 2008 10:03 AM
Jim Wallis wrote:
The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons, the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago.
It's true there's some cherry-picking going on here, but what is equally disconcerting is that out of all of Rev. Wright's defenders at Sojo, none has managed to find a Wright quotation that is simultaneously interesting and sane. As much as I may be predisposed to low expectations from Black Liberation Theology, I must say I find this failure quite surprising.
The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told.
Granted, but what if the black pulpit is used to tell falsehoods? Can a falsehood be "prophetic"?
But if you look beyond the grainy black and white clips of the dashiki clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear) to actually listen to what the words are saying about America being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about American misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.
Okay, so are you saying that the angry tone of voice and the dashiki were fabrications created by Obama's critics? Or are you saying that Rev. Wright wore the Dashiki and adopted that "angry black male voice" in order to "provoke stereotypes and fear"? And with all due respect to Wallis, I find it rather easy to disagree with the "fact" that the US government created the AIDS virus.
Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope.
Good, so we can look forward to more rational (but still occasionally angry) sermons from Trinity? I could live with that.
But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Obama's decision to attend Trinity was to some extent politically motivated? Are you sure you want to say that this explains Obama's decision to attend Trinity and remain there for 20 years?
So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger.
Yes, it would be a tragedy, but great tragedy often flows from the flaws of us mortals. Fair or not, Obama's claim to be our best hope of healing all that frustration and anger is fading because of his association with Wright.
It does not help matters when his supporters twist logic well beyond the breaking point to make excuses for Wright.
It's time for the left to try a new approach: recognize that Wright is a mediocre theologian (even in the context of the black church) and a hothead (even after accounting for the understandable frustrations that African-Americans feel) and that his sermons can be downright poisonous. Distance yourselves from his variety of "Black Liberation Theology, and then invite Barack Obama to do likewise. It may already too late, but if there's any way to avoid a tragedy, it's your only way out.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 18, 2008 10:33 AM
Obama in no way represents hope or a new start or anything--he is a smarmy, arrogant, opportunist politician. He is the left-wing equivalent of Bush. The right wanted to have a beer with Bush, the left wants to have a latte with Obama. He is incurious and incompetent, just like Bush, and the caricature on SNL nails him completely.
Wallis here repesents the worst of an unthinking left-wing who think that John Lennon's Imagine is the greatest song ever and who trust an empty suit like Obama who gives swell graduation speeches (at the end of each of his speeches, I want to shout, "Woo-hoo, let's go class of '08! We rule!") but who has no experience and clearly no judgment if we look at the sorts of advisors which surround him.
I support Hillary--who is like many competent, qualified women who have waited and worked years for a promotion. She is now seeing her rightful place being taken by the bright young kid who just joined the company. A better song by by John Lennon is Woman is the N* of the World--it is better to be a black man than a woman of any color. The rejection of an experienced, qualified woman in place of a nifty new guy with a great personality is the sum of all sexism. Phoebe and Lydia and Junia and Mary Magdalene would be furious.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Mr. Wallis is correct that we need to heal.
He is also correct that one can not appreciate the retoric of a community without first opening to understand a community. (in this case the Black Church pulpit) We are however in an age of short memories and as it were sound bights. True thoughtful reporting has left our "News Media" in all modles and thus understandable-explainable cultural motifs are often missunderstood. This may, however; be a wise wake up call to all of us not to judge to harshly. Our speach is important and our words do have wieght. Therefore this may be an encouraging moment where pastures in all religious faiths can "Re-think" how they put forth those ideas they wish to express.
There is an opportunity here if seized with thoughtfulness to retun the "Black Religious Tradition" to a kinder gentler maner of retoricial words. This does not mean the passion should be out of the ideas. Dr. KING used both approaches. He understood the cadence of speach, the power of the oritory, but he also was able to transend race in speaking about all people and still letting us all know what he meant by "His" people. Great leaders always accomplish this transent task.
The issue is universal truths. Once one realizes that the heart of any matter is the truth it is far easier to speak about the opportunities to heal everyone. Obsuring the truth or just wishing "your truth" be told, "your Way" created divides be they race or religious in nature.
Take the High Road everyone. You will be amazed at how fast it heals many misunderstandings.
Posted by: R. Bruce Lindsay III | March 18, 2008 10:49 AM
It's true there's some cherry-picking going on here, but what is equally disconcerting is that out of all of Rev. Wright's defenders at Sojo, none has managed to find a Wright quotation that is simultaneously interesting and sane. As much as I may be predisposed to low expectations from Black Liberation Theology, I must say I find this failure quite surprising.
That's the point. As you know, I'm a pretty solid Calvinist, but the theological study -- "about God" -- which I was reared with can take you only so far, which is why I'm no longer part of that orbit. One thing about prophets: They don't tell the future; they live there.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Obama's decision to attend Trinity was to some extent politically motivated? Are you sure you want to say that this explains Obama's decision to attend Trinity and remain there for 20 years?
Not exactly and not necessarily. Though he is not African-American in the classic sense, he likely recognized that, in this society, he will be perceived as such and probably recognized that he needed to connect with those of his "hue."
Distance yourselves from his variety of "Black Liberation Theology, and then invite Barack Obama to do likewise. It may already too late, but if there's any way to avoid a tragedy, it's your only way out.
What do you replace it with?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 10:55 AM
Keep the politics out of church
Obama is denouncing Wright right now as we speak
Obama should have denounced him when he sat in the pew for 20 years and whenever he heard the racists statements.
Why hasn't Sojo?
He wouldn't be giving this speech if someone hadn't brought the issue to the table.
Which makes these words hollow.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 18, 2008 11:05 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why does it matter than the videos are "grainy"? (I've seen the same thing on other apologetic blogs.)
And just what context makes Damning of America justified? And just what context does telling his congregation that 9/11 was this country's just retribution justified?
When white Christian pastors broadcast their messages of hate, I get angry. And I get angry when African American Christian pastors broadcast their messages of hate. (Not being a Christian I don't quite understand how all of this hate dovetails with Jesus's messages, but I suppose that is merely my lack of understand at what Jesus REALLY meant.
I have no idea what Barack and Michelle Obama suffered over their lives because they had dark skins.THey have led pretty charmed adult lives, however, as very gifted persons, with excellent educational training, who have attained worthy professional occupations commensurate with that intelligence and professional achievements. And as you point out, they are not alone. Whatever African Americans have suffered in the past, and whatever suffering exists today, and it does in this country for many, African American and not, I endorse your comments about those who wish to heal the white / black divide. (Of course, that wish isn't so new.
That wish has been there for awhile. After all, Dr. King did not have a dream that America, or white America or whoever would be damned by God. He did not have a dream that 19 terrorists would enter the country, cause airplanes to fly into New York office buildings and kill 3000 people in a moment. Or if he did, he didn't tell a lot of people about it.
I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that we live in a new day, that African Americans can live where they wish, go to schools were they wish, have the job opportunities that they deserve. And may I also hope that Christian pastors, be they white, black, asian, brown or whatever, will preach the messages of Jesus and not the hatred that we have come to see from too many.
Now maybe Rev Wright has just taken his given name too seriously, and is just doing what a Jeremiah does. Perhaps he should also consider Isaiah and his messages of consolation. But I wish you would provide that context so that I can understand what makes it acceptable, in your mind, for Christian ministers to preach the gospel of hatred of the United States, whether in grainy video or full color HD.
Posted by: Barry | March 18, 2008 11:14 AM
What would I replace it with? I would leave a lot of that up to the black community, but there is a principle that should be kept in mind:
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. In your anger, do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while youare still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.
Ephesians 4:26
I wouldn't say there are no grounds for anger even now, but anger must be restrained and subjected to truth. Nor should it be wallowed in or stoked up recklessly.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, beyond pointing out that Rev. Wright appears to have forgotten that his pain is not a blanket justification for slanders, nor should he be too eager for God's wrath to fall even on those he considers his enemies.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Is it too much to expect at this time of year when Christians purportedly commemorate God coming into the world to walk in our shoes that we WASPs make a concerted effort to walk in the shoes of an oppressed minority?
Take a look at Tibet to de-Americanize the point.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Obama should have denounced him when he sat in the pew for 20 years and whenever he heard the racists statements.
Perhaps they were pretty far and few between. You weren't there -- how would you know? And, besides that, are you saying that simply because he says things you'd rather have swept under the rug. Keep in mind that you come from a different culture and different ideology; just because a statement offends you doesn't mean you have the right to dismiss it out-of-hand.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, ...
So then you should hold off on making any pronouncements as to what they should do. Even you have made statements here that reflect your deepest beliefs that, nevertheless, do not hold water upon further inspection. so you ought to be able to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 11:56 AM
I just heard Senator Obama's speech. I cannot add anything to it. I was extremely impressed with what he had to say, both in repudiating the statements of Pastor Wright and in challenging us all to go beyond the things that separate us.
His explanation for his relationship with Pastor Wright is not only understandable but laudable.
How could the words of this speech change his church in the future?. How would his "running like the wind" have left it with only one voice and perhaps left without even the hope of change?
We have all heard a small segment of the things Pastor Wright has said, what I think I heard this morning was a small segment of how Senator Obama, by staying connected with his church, probably replied to his pastor in private.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 12:01 PM
Jesus went back to his hometown; was at first complimented for his gracious speech, as he declared the arrival of favor and liberation. The compliments quickly turned to an attempt on his life when he, on the basis of the scriptures, declared the hated Syrians and Sidonians to be also accepted by God.
Can someone today move ahead and see a deeper message in the gospel or are we all doomed to rest at the point our mentors seemed to leave us? Can we "understand" Psalm 137 which ends:
7 Remember, Yahweh, to the Edomites cost, the day of Jerusalem, how they said, Down with it! Raze it to the ground!
8 Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us,
9 a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!
And then read Matthew 5 and trust Jesus?
This week we especially remember Jesus prayer that the Father forgive. We also remember his quotation of the Psalm of despair, Psalm 22. Whether audibly or silently; I believe he quoted the entire Psalm and not just the first line.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 12:03 PM
A very powerful speech by Obama in Philadelphia.
God bless you Obama-- God be with you.
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 18, 2008 12:11 PM
I don't recall anyone saying anything about the dashiki, and many people read the comments, which are manifestly incendiary to hear and to read. And the Hillary campaign (who, not that Wallis cares one wit, is not part of the right wing anything) has done plenty to amp up the issue.
But then, given that Sojo has invested quite a bit of energy of (not) endorsing Obama, I don't know what else Wallis could write.
"but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics."
It is precisely because he cast himself as a new kind of political leader that he is in this mess. If he had just fessed up to being a partisan politician, and brought some ideas to the table, this wouldn't be an issue.
Wayne,
If you were impressed with Obama's speech, what did he say that you did not think he would say? It followed the standard script, right down to a little girl named Ashley.
Well crafted? Yes. Inspiring? If you were predisposed to inspiration from the get-go, I suppose. But what was impressive?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 12:17 PM
Gosh, has Wallis become Obama's campaign rapid response team now? Why can't he just repudiate the racist and hateful remarks? I guess because he is the tank for Obama.
Posted by: Cynthia Crown | March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
I see comments on this thread and related recent threads from people who are quite plainly Republican partisans, and who are quite plainly reciting fake, phony, false, bogus, dishonest, scripted Republican talking points to attack Senator Obama.
Arguing with such people is futile. They are not interested in facts. They are not interested in understanding. They are interested in advancing the interests of the Republican Party by whatever means necessary, including lies, distortions, and naked appeals to racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and other unfortunate and hurtful tendencies founded in fear.
I am not myself a Christian, but as I understand it, such behavior is not in accord with generally accepted Christian ethics.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama this morning gave one of the best speeches that I have heard from any American politician in my lifetime, and perhaps in American political history. I have not until now been as impressed by Senator Obama's renowned rhetorical gifts as
many of his supporters seem to be, and (as a registered Green Party voter and a supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's primary campaign) I have been "agnostic" with regard to the primary contest between Senators Obama and Clinton.
However, with this speech, I have become a fan of Senator Obama. Of the three major candidates still in the race, he is clearly the best choice, and may well have the potential to be one of the truly great American presidents in history, at a crucial time not only for the USA but for the survival of the human species on this planet.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 12:23 PM
'...all the forces that represent the old kind of politics...'
Maybe the correct statement would be the 'old Clinton kind of politics'?
'...cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts...'
Unfortunate - but something that Network News has made their living on over that past decades in their coverage of conservatives - whatever.
'...black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling...'
AIDS was developed by the USA and we knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor and WTC ahead of time? Please! If this was a white pastor - I would love to see what the Networks would do. It is coming out that Oprah left this church in the mid 90's I believe because of Wright. Yes - Robertson and Fawell have said things on the edge and have been taken to task by several - publically. In several instances they recanted the statements and apoligized.
Kinda sucks when liberals get looked at under the same microscope that has been used on conservatives over the past few decades. Words matter and I believe that Obama is just learning that lesson. You will also be hung with the company that you keep - welcome to life.
I find it interesting that a few months ago I made a statement along the lines of 'God should damn America because of our transgressions in several areas and many on this site took me to the wood shead. Now Wright says the same thing and several of those same people agree that God should...whatever.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 12:35 PM
It is precisely because he cast himself as a new kind of political leader that he is in this mess. If he had just fessed up to being a partisan politician, and brought some ideas to the table, this wouldn't be an issue.
Kevin, you just don't get it. He is the new idea, which is why he's doing so well. He's trying to leave behind the poisonous political wars of the past -- which is something that, frankly, your side seems to be incapable of doing, so committed it is to a divisive ideological agenda that has shot its wad and found wanting.
Why can't he just repudiate the racist and hateful remarks?
Did you see the speech? He actually did. But he placed them in context of Wright's generation, which was fair -- no different from what others have done (and he addressed those as well).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM
Ashpenaz Wrote:
"Wallis here repesents the worst of an unthinking left-wing who think that John Lennon's Imagine is the greatest song ever and who trust an empty suit like Obama who gives swell graduation speeches (at the end of each of his speeches, I want to shout, "Woo-hoo, let's go class of '08! We rule!") but who has no experience and clearly no judgment if we look at the sorts of advisors which surround him."
If you support Hillary, I assume you are a Democrat. If so, why would you so angrily attack a fellow member of the party just because he is winning? Why get so personal? Hillary is a very brilliant, capable woman and politician. However she IS NOT ENTITLED to the nomination.
Posted by: Doug, the Proud Liberal | March 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Kevin
I am in the middle of a big day and just heard it so I will respond in detail for you later, but heh bro if you are predisposed to hate it will that matter?
I have often talked privately with friends and family about what I saw as weaknesses in Obama's campaign. You couldn't know that, but I have openly on this site said I am a Republican and that my vote is for McCain.
I think you have mis-identified the one with the predisposition and fixated view point here.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 12:49 PM
I find it interesting that a few months ago I made a statement along the lines of 'God should damn America because of our transgressions in several areas and many on this site took me to the wood shead.
The context was far different, however. When conservatives do that it's always for the sake of inciting hatred against someone for ideological/political purposes -- scapegoating, if you will; therefore, it's not truly prophetic. Wright, on the other hand, will not personally gain from anything he says, at least not directly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Wolverine,
You don't get to decide our way out. It's your way or the highway huh? That did not work before and it's not going to work now. If anything you all have to follow us now or not. But we see when left to your own devices white folks seldom change w/o someone really pushing them too. But then that is true for everyone. You need us, we need you. But that doesn't mean it has to be your terms.
Oh and it's not too late, not by a longshot.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM
"He is the new idea, which is why he's doing so well."
That's what I said. And the Wright connection, not to mention Obama's absurd claims that he was unaware of them, cast him firmly in the vein of contemporary politics. He's nothing new. He's just a popular Democrat. I think he can win one term, but not two.
"Did you see the speech? He actually did. "
She was talking about Wallis.
"I am in the middle of a big day and just heard it so I will respond in detail for you later, but heh bro if you are predisposed to hate it will that matter?"
Yes. You are not going to persuade me to like the speech, but I was interested in what surprised you about it that you would be impressed. It went about exactly as I thought it would.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 12:57 PM
Ephesians 4:26
I wouldn't say there are no grounds for anger even now, but anger must be restrained and subjected to truth. Nor should it be wallowed in or stoked up recklessly.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, beyond pointing out that Rev. Wright appears to have forgotten that his pain is not a blanket justification for slanders, nor should he be too eager for God's wrath to fall even on those he considers his enemies.
Wolverine
Anger is sometimes necessary especially when people are not allowed to pray in God's temple. You might want to ask Jesus about that one. Not only that but when Paul incites others to mutilate their own genitals I would think that Paul was not as averse to anger as you wrote in your post.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 12:58 PM
Here's the message of "unity" in Obama's speech: If whites will feel really, really guilty about how hard they make life for blacks, and if blacks will be nice and forgive the whites who repent, then we can have unity. There was nothing in his speech about the fact that blacks sold other blacks into slavery and that well-to-do blacks in the Caribbean had black slaves. There was also nothing about the whites who died in the Civil War to end slavery--a little gratitude, maybe? Abraham Lincoln was white. FDR was white. LBJ was white--we don't have anything to apologize for.
This speech was about as profound as the movie Crash.
I, as a gay man, am appalled at the homophobic preachers Obama has on his team. His unity does not include me--he didn't mention me in his speech. He also ignored women. Only blacks have ever been the victim of oppression. And blacks never, never oppress--not one word of racial hatred ever came out in any of Wright's conversation. Sure, I'll bet. I bet Rev. Wright watched Will and Grace and laughed. I bet Rev. Wright never ordered his wife to bring him a beer.
It's OK for people like Obama to exclude women and gays and to imply that Hispanics are stealing jobs. I don't want his vision of unity, and I'm beginning to see that Wallis is of the same breed.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Ashpenaz,
He has mentioned gay people before. I could google the speech and highlight it for you if you want. This is not about you. This is about the racial divide. BTW FDR (love him) was a racist and did not really care for black people. LBJ had to be forced to do the right thing. He did not do it out of the goodness of his heart. Lincoln was no friends to black people. you should really do some more research before you post, because Lincoln's main goal was the preservation of the union, not the freedom of black folks. Not only that but he never freed the slaves. the Emancipation Proclamation was not a law, it was pretty words that kept slavery going in the border states for a few decades.
I support gay marriage and protection for the LGBTQ community. Can you do the same for black people or does that matter to you?
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Also, Ashpenaz, Obama reprimanded the black church (writ large) from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in his MLK Day address for its history of homophobia. You can google the text of his speech to see it plainly spelled out.
In addition, he has the most progressive policies on many issues affecting the Hispanic community, including being in favor of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Please cite your sources for claiming that he is trying to pit African Americans and Hispanics against each other.
Posted by: Ingrid | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM
I think this entire thing is ridiculous. Sen. Obama is running for president, not his former pastor Rev. Wright. Obama has never made those statements nor did he ever hint that he felt the same way as his former pastor in anything Obama has ever said.
Yes, he recognizes Wright as his spiritual adviser, but why doesn't the media dig up dirt on other past presidents' spiritual advisers, or Clinton and McCain's spiritual advisers? How many people on here agree with everything John Hagee has said? Well, he's supposedly endorsed McCain and has advised him.
You remember Jerry Falwell (rest his soul)? He convinced Reagan that the Soviet Union was the army of the anti-christ and that America represented the army of God! Point is, every man/woman, whether black or white, that has run for any political office has been associated with people that have hurt their image. Get over it people.
Now I see why this is about race. How ironic is it that the one getting heat for his spiritual adviser is the black candidate, when white preachers back in the 60's were just as rowdy and controversial towards black people like Rev. Wright is. But that was acceptable for the white preachers back then....
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM
McCain's Spiritual Advisers
By David Knowles
"Two of John McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers" are evangelical leaders with some rather controversial views on religions other than their own. Denise Williams has already detailed the case of John Hagee, the man who has called Catholicism "a cult," and has likened it to "the Great Whore" in Revelation 17.
Yesterday, Mother Jones published a bit on another televangelist whose support McCain actively courted, and who has since spoken at McCain rallies. Meet Ohio Minister Rod Parsley. Among the planks in his pious platform is the armed eradication of Islam. Not just it's radical extremists, mind you, but the whole screwy religion.
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
That should go over well in diplomatic circles.
So while Hagee is busy angling for the rapture by making sure that there's no peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Parsley wants to mobilize the country in a Christian-style jihad against Muslims. To these followers of the Prince of Peace, the only way forward seems to be to start the mother of all wars. I guess we can hope that McCain is playing these guys and their followers just like Bush and Rove played them in 2000 and 2004." (emphasis mine)
When are we going to hear news stories about this? At least Rev. Wright believes in helping the poor and oppressed. The spiritual advisers on the right seem to want nothing more then to fuel hate to those who are different and wage war to those who oppose us: two things Jesus spoke more against than their precious abortion and homosexuality issues (not that I don't think those are important).
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 1:58 PM
1) I seem to recall having read Wallis on several occasions cherry pick an intentionally provocative quote from Grover Nordquist which he used to somehow refute the policies of the entire Republican party.
2) Wallis defends Wright and Obama repudiates him. Who's in the wrong?
3) How much of Wright's hate speech does Wallis agree with?
4) Wallis and Sojo's failure to come out and criticize Wright's hate speech is one of the larger failures of contemporary liberalism, which refuses to find any fault at all in individuals belonging to a victim class (unless individuals in that class are conservative). This does only harm in the end.
5) Just come out with your endorsement of Obama already. I hear Wallis frequently argue that evangelicals should not be in the pockets of any politician. If Wallis and Sojo's uncritical defense and adoration isn't putting them in Obama's pocket, then what would?
Posted by: jesse | March 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM
'...conservatives do that it's always for the sake of inciting hatred against someone...'
Oh - give it a shake peaches. I never mentioned a person or people group. It was because of what I saw was wrong in the US and errors that needed to be corrected. When Wright was saying the samething - I felt no love, no compassion, no 'meet you in the middle'. The USA had nothing to do with developing the AIDS virus or much else that the Rev. had to say.
Again - if this was a white pastor with this retoric and a white male canidate - they would be cained. If I attended a church where a pastor made these statements from the pulpit in the context of a worship service. I would schedule a meeting with them and if they were going to continue - I would have to leave. But then again - I am just a conservative that is trying to do the best I can to do the Lord's will. Assisting a Liberian Congregation in our community so that they can worship freely and in the style that they feel comfortable with and help maintain their culture here in America. (much like the Swedes did in the late 1800's and early 1900's)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:09 PM
There are distinctions to be drawn between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. There's another distinction to be made and that is between the overt racism that is rooted in bigotry and personal sin, which our country has progressively transcended since the civil rights era, and the institutional racism that lingers - socially, economically and politically - and that we continue to harvest as the "fruits" of an original-type sin, which is rooted moreso in our human finitude.
It has been said that it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier around, even after the captain gives the order. Our country took great strides in its civil rights legislation, as the co-captains of an authentically prophetic protest and a politically-awakened conscience of a great nation spoke the command together to turn our centuries-old heritage of overt racism around, but we have not fully crossed the five miles of ocean that will be required to swallow up the pains of past misunderstandings and the cross-generational effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, which yet leave so many in poverty and otherwise genuinely at-risk.
A problem with institutionalized racism and original-type sin is that no one is truly at fault or necessarily culpable, at least not to the extent that we can talk any longer of any particular sins of commission (for the most part). However, once we witness the intractability of lingering social injustices and inequalities, once we hear the voices of authentically prophetic protests, we are at-risk of sinning through omission and, make no mistake; we are exposed to guilt by association with institutions that Scott Peck would describe as having "sick identity structures." To remain exculpable, then, we must speak out and contribute to the healthful transformation of our institutions - social, economic, political and, yes, religious.
And this brings us full circle back to the distinctions we need to draw between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. Let there be no mistake; any congregation which self-describes as "Unashamedly Black, an African people true to our native land," is joyfully celebrating its ethnic heritage in a religious experience and tradition that is deep. Let there also be no mistake in that words of intolerance, which disparage our country and degrade individuals, are not what can be considered an authentically prophetic protest and they have no place in our dialogue, public or private.
America is beautiful. God has shed His grace on her. Those who cannot see this beauty are blind. However, those who cannot see her blemishes are equally blind. Somewhere between the polarizing forces of a shameful self-loathing anti-Americanism and a shameless nationalistic jingoism is an authentic self-critical patriotism. Before, however, we castigate those who suffer any degree of blindness to America's beauty, let us engage a prayerful and dutiful introspection to discern what we, ourselves, may have done to hide her beauty and light under a bushel basket. Before we excoriate those who are apparently blind to America's blemishes, let us look within our own hearts to discern whether or not we are truly in touch with the wellsprings of gratitude that should flow in response to the accident of our birth in the most prosperous and generous nation that civilization has ever grown. It is true that some still sleep, slumbering in the illusion of our separateness. There is a little of that in all of us, wounded and weary as the journey can make us? When we do speak intemperate words, however, they are not necessarily defining moments unless they are repetitively reinforcing moments, unless our actions of a lifetime betray our otherwise sanctimonious pretentions.
Those of us who are Catholic and truly in touch with our innate catholicity, who advocate inculturated theology and celebrate our unity of mission and diversity of ministry, will not be at all put off by cultural expressions that reflect our rich diversity and that celebrate our wonderful, even when arduous, journeys of liberation and traditions of transformation. We should not fall into such a temptation as would parody the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, cynically substituting the word "White" in place of "Black," or Caucasian in place of African, as if to charge that congregation with overt racism and bigotry (notwithstanding the intemperate and inflammatory speech that was spoken in its pulpit). I see that mission statement and am led, instead, to insert the words Cajun and Acadian! Others might rightfully insert their own cultural heritage and place of origin (or forced exile).
In closing, as Catholics, we affirm a model of local church that does not overidentify (thank God, eh?) with its pastors and institutional hierarchy but which is, instead, defined by, and invested in, its families, its ministries, its social justice programs, its small faith communities, its catechists and prayer groups, its outreach to those in grief and those in need, its liturgical rhythms and communal fellowships, and a solidarity with a church universal and a Body of Christ, mystical. The same can be said for the Trinity United Church of Christ. So, when we read the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, we won't see an overt racism (except, perhaps, as a reflection of some of our own inner dispositions, which might say more about some of us than anyone else). Rather, we might experience a deep inner resonance and heartfelt solidarity with a journey that is both our own and not our own, seeing a difference in the oceans we have crossed, the chains we have worn and the sorrows we have borne, to be sure, but experiencing, at a deeper level, what we have shared: the redemptions we have known, the salvations and resurrections we have owned and looking, together, to the One, Who is the Author and Finisher of the work that will one day awaken us all to the depthful reality of our joyful and loving sisterhood and brotherhood.
Thanks for your time.
John Sylvest
New Orleans, Louisiana
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:14 PM
I seem to recall having read Wallis on several occasions cherry pick an intentionally provocative quote from Grover Nordquist which he used to somehow refute the policies of the entire Republican party.
You don't need to cherry-pick from Norquist -- he has always made those type of statements and never once has backed down from them. He virtually ran the conservative wing of the GOP and was the virtual head of the VRWC.
Wallis and Sojo's failure to come out and criticize Wright's hate speech is one of the larger failures of contemporary liberalism, which refuses to find any fault at all in individuals belonging to a victim class (unless individuals in that class are conservative). This does only harm in the end.
It was the conservatives who made them into victims in the first place and who wants to keep everyone from addressing that. That's why the conservative ship is sinking.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:15 PM
There's a big word, THEODICY, that entails the question of how we can reconcile the twinned realities of suffering and a good God. And I was taught that every good theodicy retained one indispensable element: MYSTERY.
It is a faulty theodicy, then, whether from the far left or the far right, that attempts to exhaust such mystery and to explain away life's tragedies. It is an anachronistic Old Testament biblical literalism that explains tragedy in terms of Divine wrath and retribution, not seeing the rainbow promises of the New Covenant that point to transformation as all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (and the converse statement has no currency in this New Creation).
I am not prepared to comment on the life's works and ministries of Jeremiah Wright, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Jerry Falwell and their ilk, but I can suggest that God's not likely sending Wright's chickens and Robertson's hurricanes to punish Hagee's whores and Falwell's homosexuals?
Wright is being treated with a double-standard by the Religious Right and that wannabe News Network.
I've been a Roman Catholic for 53 years, but I do not approach sexual morality with the same medieval-like absolutized physicalism of its Teaching Office, and I do not take responsibility for the thousands of clerics who, in America, alone, sexually preyed upon thousands of innocent victims. And I do not abide with the ancient patriarchal mindset that others might see as institutionalized sexism. And I am much more in tune with the Anglican approach of "all may, none must, some should" vis a vis Sacraments and various church disciplines. I totally reject the creeping infallibilism of the Ordinary Magisterium and decry the marginalization of the Sensus Fidelium.
And these positions have large-scale practical consequences, such as for the millions in Africa dying of AIDS who are deprived of condoms due to tortured natural law interpretations, such as for the innocent victims of a rampant sexual abuse that was mismanaged for the sake of maintaining a sick identity structure, such as for the masses of believers who endured the torments of scruples over the dread of hell that would ensue from divorcing and remarrying without a church sanctioned annulment, for masturbation, missing Mass or eating meat on Friday (all once equated with murder with no parvity of matter).
Now, if I stayed in the pews for half a century, due to such reasons to stay as might have persuaded me over against all of these rather compelling reasons to leave, then I am ALMOST PERSUADED that Obama had similarly compelling reasons to stay where he was, too, being no more "damaged goods" than me, possibly transcending it all (as his rhetoric and actions seem to reveal BIG TIME) and hanging around as a healing and transformative influence on others. WE are a different generation. Can we transcend this type of stuff? YES, WE CAN!
UPDATE:
After Obama's Philadelphia speech, which will go down as one of the greatest in US Political History, I am TOTALLY PERSUADED!
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Oh - give it a shake peaches. I never mentioned a person or people group.
You don't need to, but in the process you're comparing apples and oranges. "Meet me in the middle?" Not possible, because his critics need to deal with their issues first; otherwise they won't be.
If I attended a church where a pastor made these statements from the pulpit in the context of a worship service. I would schedule a meeting with them and if they were going to continue - I would have to leave.
Again, you missed the context.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
"Again - if this was a white pastor with this retoric and a white male canidate - they would be cained."
Surely you jest. The only comment I've seen in this discussion that really gets to the heart of the matter is that by Matt G. Let my amplify a bit.
I honestly don't see anything worse in Reverend Wright's statements than what Rush Limbaugh says every day on his radio show. (NB: That doesn't mean I approve of them.) However, I have yet to see a white conservative politician denounce Limbaugh, and I think I know why. His entire shtick is based on a tone-deaf imitation of black prophetic preaching, designed to promote the preposterous idea that white conservative Christians are an oppressed minority, and that liberals are doing the oppressing.
Wright may step over the line from time to time, but everything Limbaugh says is based on this despicable slander, so the only way to call him on the carpet would be to denounce everything he says.
So I have a challenge for John McCain, who certainly has no love for Limbaugh. Now that Obama has denounced Reverend Wright's statements, are you willing to denounce Rush Limbaugh, in his entirety, and show the well-deserved contempt for his support that he has richly earned? Or will you instead go courting him, as every successful right-wing politician of the past 20 years has done?
Time will tell.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
It has been said that it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier around, even after the captain gives the order. Our country took great strides in its civil rights legislation, as the co-captains of an authentically prophetic protest and a politically-awakened conscience of a great nation spoke the command together to turn our centuries-old heritage of overt racism around, but we have not fully crossed the five miles of ocean that will be required to swallow up the pains of past misunderstandings and the cross-generational effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, which yet leave so many in poverty and otherwise genuinely at-risk.
A problem with institutionalized racism and original-type sin is that no one is truly at fault or necessarily culpable, at least not to the extent that we can talk any longer of any particular sins of commission (for the most part). However, once we witness the intractability of lingering social injustices and inequalities, once we hear the voices of authentically prophetic protests, we are at-risk of sinning through omission and, make no mistake; we are exposed to guilt by association with institutions that Scott Peck would describe as having "sick identity structures." To remain exculpable, then, we must speak out and contribute to the healthful transformation of our institutions - social, economic, political and, yes, religious.
America is beautiful. God has shed His grace on her. Those who cannot see this beauty are blind. However, those who cannot see her blemishes are equally blind. Somewhere between the polarizing forces of a shameful self-loathing anti-Americanism and a shameless nationalistic jingoism is an authentic self-critical patriotism. Before, however, we castigate those who suffer any degree of blindness to America's beauty, let us engage a prayerful and dutiful introspection to discern what we, ourselves, may have done to hide her beauty and light under a bushel basket. Before we excoriate those who are apparently blind to America's blemishes, let us look within our own hearts to discern whether or not we are truly in touch with the wellsprings of gratitude that should flow in response to the accident of our birth in the most prosperous and generous nation that civilization has ever grown. It is true that some still sleep, slumbering in the illusion of our separateness. There is a little of that in all of us, wounded and weary as the journey can make us. When we do speak intemperate words, however, they are not necessarily defining moments unless they are repetitively reinforcing moments, unless our actions of a lifetime betray our otherwise sanctimonious pretentions.
As Catholics, we affirm a model of local church that does not overidentify (thank God, eh?) with its pastors and institutional hierarchy but which is, instead, defined by and invested in its families, its ministries, its social justice programs, its small faith communities, its catechists and prayer groups, its outreach to those in grief and those in need, its liturgical rhythms and communal fellowships, and a solidarity with a church universal and a Body of Christ, mystical. The same can be said for the Trinity United Church of Christ. So, when we read the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, we won't see an overt racism (except, perhaps, as a reflection of our own inner dispositions, which might say more about us than anyone else). Rather, we might experience a deep inner resonance and heartfelt solidarity with a journey that is both our own and not our own, seeing a difference in the oceans we have crossed, the chains we have worn and the sorrows we have borne, to be sure, but experiencing, at a deeper level, what we share: the redemptions we have known, the salvations and resurrections we have owned and looking, together, to the One, Who is the Author and Finisher of the work that will one day awaken us all to the depthful reality of our joyful and loving sisterhood and brotherhood.
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:28 PM
Mr Wallis missed so many key points. I am familiar with black anger and its many sources. The one which Mr. Obama failed to address and the one that is perpetuated by Mr Wright and so many others is the myths that are dominant in the black community about aids, drugs, syphillus at Tuskegee, etc. If all of these myths were true, there would be no hope for change which is what many believe. I hear so often, nothing has chnaged. Or really? It is the responsibility of black leaders to tell the truth about these myths, not perpeturate them or ignore them. Do they maintain believe in these myths to maintian anger and thus their own power?
These myths hurt the black community directly and hurt all of us indirectly. And a believe in these myths is pervasive in the community and very clear in Mr. Wrights remarks. Mr. Obama should have addressed them directly.
Posted by: Dawn McNeal | March 18, 2008 2:29 PM
moderate lad wrote: "The USA had nothing to do with developing the AIDS virus ..."
I have never seen any plausible evidence that HIV was deliberately "developed" by human beings -- although there is plenty of evidence that the US government, as well as governments of other nations, have deliberately developed even more virulent and lethal biological agents for use as weapons.
However, it is a matter of historical fact that a deliberate course of inaction against HIV/AIDs by the Reagan administration, following the discovery of the virus and its effects in the early 1980s, was a major and significant factor that facilitated the spread of the disease, at a time when prompt action might well have prevented it from becoming the global problem that it is today.
Similarly, I have never seen any plausible evidence that the US government was complicit in the planning or execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the public record that the Bush administration received numerous, specific, advanced warnings during the summer of 2001 -- from its own intelligence agencies as well as from other countries -- that a large-scale Al Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil was imminent. And these specific warnings followed strenuous but futile efforts by outgoing members of the Clinton administration urging their incoming counterparts in the Bush administration to focus on the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda. And senior members of the Bush administration chose to ignore all of these warnings and do nothing. This may have been "merely" bad judgement bordering on criminal negligence, or it may have been a deliberate decision to allow a major terrorist attack to occur, with the intent of exploiting such an attack as a "new Pearl Harbor" to rally public support for the long-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Similarly, there is abundant evidence that during the Reagan administration's terrorist wars against the people of Central America during the 1980s, the CIA deliberately permitted the US-funded "Contra" terrorists of Nicaragua to raise money by running drugs -- in particular cocaine -- into major urban centers in the USA where it had a devastating impact on black communities (and afforded a pretext for mass incarcerations of young black men).
When the US government acts in such ways -- negligently or deliberately ignoring threats to the American people and to vulnerable and politically powerless groups in particular -- it is not surprising that some people come to see the US government as actively creating these threats. Such beliefs are mistaken, but the truth is plenty bad enough.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 2:34 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
'...because his critics need to deal with their issues first...'
So - because of some - Wright is given a 'bye' to say whatever he 'D**n' well pleases until the 'others' deal with their issues first? I don't even think Wallis would agree with that statement.
Just because I am 'white' - Wright has the right to dump me into the same pit that he is dumping all other 'white' people regardless of how they handle their personal lives and other people in the community. So - if I am no better in the eyes of Wright and his congregation - why should I continue to help those in need in my community. I am just another white bigot in Wrights eyes. (and I wonder about the eyes of others)
Wrights words are wrong regardless of what race you are. Obama says that words are important - he is correct and Wrights words and the 20+ year influence he has had on Obama and his family I believe will be an issue that the Clintons will have a hayday with.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:36 PM
"I think this entire thing is ridiculous. Sen. Obama is running for president, not his former pastor Rev. Wright."
But Wright was working with the campaign until the story broke. Even after he became aware of it, he had Wright working for him.
"Get over it people."
Which people? I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama.
"When are we going to hear news stories about this?"
I heard quite a few of them, but most cite the fact that McCain was seeking the endorsement the same way he sought many conservative religious leaders, and touted his pro-Israel stances to get it. That is the extent of the connection, and no moderate voter is going to find that particularly troublesome.
Obama and McCain have, and will have, a number of endorsers who have also said controversial things, but not all are newsworthy because the nature of their endorsement doesn't involve those things. As such, you won't hear much about them in the news.
That said, you heard plenty about George W. Bush's speech at Bob Jones University. Did you think that was relevant?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 2:41 PM
It was the conservatives who made them into victims in the first place and who wants to keep everyone from addressing that. That's why the conservative ship is sinking.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Ah , I knew it was the conservatives behind it .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 2:41 PM
'...plausible evidence...'
You are relying on 'plausible' too much. As for the Reagan Adm and HIV/AIDS. It was a Dem controled congress in power at the time. Why could'nt they get their collective backsides together and pass a bill and force Reagan to sign or veto and show their true colors?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM
Dawn,
The Tuskeegee experiments happened. You can read more about it here. Actually let me just copy what they said.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”
The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain. Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.” When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”
A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science
By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.
You can read more about the article here.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 2:50 PM
It's time for the left to try a new approach: recognize that Wright is a mediocre theologian (even in the context of the black church)
Posted by Wolverine
I am not sure about that , he had a huge Congregation . Some Pastors have a Pastors heart for their members, but can not preach worth a darn .
"Just because I am 'white' - Wright has the right to dump me into the same pit that he is dumping all other 'white' people regardless of how they handle their personal lives and other people in the community "
I know exactly what you mean , but their is a cultural exchange here that is not getting exchanged . Wright was not speaking to you , he was speaking to the system in my opinion .
And yes I think it causes harm , but did you read Frederick Douglass taking the US to task . Think about that and the time it was given . Hundreds of thousands Of white soldiers had died already , and ending slavery was for part of that sacrifice . Think how insulted perhaps some people took what Doudlass said as controversal , today we read it and it is profound . Not saying right is profound . So when the other side is talking context on this issue , it means the whole socio cultural mixed bag . I think if some of the liberals here have been been better hosts to us with a traditional view on things , and had repected our sincerity more , this would have been easier to talk about . But its a left leaning blog , and the right blogs are not even considering giving the Pastor any slack .
To Jim Wallis if your listening , I have taken what you said to heart on this issue . And am glad you are reaching out to open the conversation . But is appears that you want conversation to go the way you believe on all conversations , and not real exposure to all the facts and understanding on all issues . Perhaps open up to some other sincere Bibical Views partnering with your organization that may challenge even yours sometimes ?
I believe you will find it reqarding , and the church more then ready for it .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 2:58 PM
WHY WON'T SOJO CONDEMN WRIGHT?
WHY WON'T THE UCC?
OBAMA HAS - WHY WON'T THE OTHERS?
I THINK WE KNOW WHY
WALLIS, NOWLIN, DON AND ALL THE OTHERS ARE TO SELF BLOGGINGLY IMPORTANT TO CONCEDE TO THE TRUTH
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 18, 2008 3:00 PM
But Wright was working with the campaign until the story broke. Even after he became aware of it, he had Wright working for him.
Yeah, but it is not like Wright made those comments yesterday. He's been saying stuff like that for last 30 years. Why is this such a big story now? Why is this breaking news now when they have been talking about Rev. Wright's controversial statements really for some time now? Seems to be a little convenient while Obama and Clinton wrestle for the Democratic nominee in a close race.
Which people? I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama.
Which is exactly the point. Everyone making a big deal about this from left and right, this isn't "newsworthy" because nobody really cares. It's not doing the damage those who brought it up thought it would.
I think the fact that McCain is becoming bed-fellows with extremist Christians and their super pro-Israel/pro-war stance is a big story. Do we really want to continue to wage war against people because of their religion? How far have we come? How mature have we gotten? You can justify war all you want (terrorism, WMD's) but, like it or not, the Eastern world sees us as Western vs. Eastern, Christian vs. Islam. They see us as anti-Muslim and as seeking to destroy their culture, their families, their faith, and their civilization. Now that needs to be spoken more about.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 3:04 PM
I may be overly optimistic, but lately, after reading Jeremy Mayer's "Running on Race" and Shelby Steele's "A Bound Man," I have begun to feel very encouraged that Obama's candidacy are opening new national conversations that will help to provide some racial healing in this country. Although I winced when I first heard about Wright's statements and for a few days felt that it was going to set things back, I am now thinking that this coming out into the open is a blessing. I am hoping that the people of this country can look at the context of those statements, step back and take a deep breath, and talk rationally about it. I think it is necessary for white America to hear the rage in these comments (over the top as they are), to consider the context and Obama's response, and to realize that those statements represent a feeling among many Blacks that an Obama nomination (and Presidency) could help to heal.
I'm not so naive to think that all Americans will learn from this (witness the knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 and the SC racist smear against McCain in 2000, for example), but hopefully a critical mass will be affected positively by this national conversation.
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 3:05 PM
So - because of some - Wright is given a 'bye' to say whatever he 'D**n' well pleases until the 'others' deal with their issues first? I don't even think Wallis would agree with that statement.
Well, Jesus might -- in the Sermon on the Mount He addressed people who had logs in their eyes attempting to removing specks in others'. Conservatives who rant against Wright simply don't have the authority to be heard because they helped to cause the problems he's addressing in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:06 PM
A few small questions/comments:
1) Paul J, did you accidentally hit your "caps lock" key?
2) Is that really you, Ashpenaz, or an imposter? It sounds more negative and biased than what I've come to expect.
3) Are the Staples (sans Pops, RIP) still connected with Trinity Chursch?
4) Like Wolverine, I'm confused about Jim's comment "the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear)." Far as I know, Rev. Wright's clothing and voice are his own.
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 3:12 PM
"Yeah, but it is not like Wright made those comments yesterday. He's been saying stuff like that for last 30 years. Why is this such a big story now?"
Well, if you believe Obama, even HE didn't know about them. But since I don't believe him, I would offer that the mainstream media did not, by virtue of the fact that they didn't attend his church.
This didn't become a huge issue until the Ohio debate, when Hillary called him out for his handling of the Farrakhan deal. I think that's when reporters started looking for the tape. That said, Obama himself wouldn't be in the news if he weren't locked in a race with Hillary, so I'm not sure of your point. Clearly, Wright is not a story in and of himself.
"Everyone making a big deal about this from left and right, this isn't "newsworthy" because nobody really cares. It's not doing the damage those who brought it up thought it would."
If that were true, Obama wouldn't have delivered a race speech today. I think moderates, those who supported Obama in the early stages are watching. Moreso, I think this situation has reduced Obama to the usual political gamesmanship. Unless this speech makes a tremendous impact, he loses some of his "post-political" sheen.
"I think the fact that McCain is becoming bed-fellows with extremist Christians and their super pro-Israel/pro-war stance is a big story. "
Pro-Israel stances are easily the norm in this country, and not news at all, and politics produces strange bedfellows. We also know enough about McCain to know that he doesn't believe we should attack Muslims for religious reasons related to his dispensationalist theology. We don't know the extent to which Obama agrees with Wright. All we know is that he has a short career as a Senator, and a long history with that church.
I'd prefer McCain hadn't sought the endorsement, but I don't think it is a bigger story.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm confused about Jim's comment "the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear)." Far as I know, Rev. Wright's clothing and voice are his own.
If you ever saw black radicals in the early 1970s you would understand immediately -- that's just what many of them wore.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:06 PM
'Sermon on the Mount...'
Blessed are the poor in spirit - No
Blessed are they that mourn - No
Blessed are those who hunger and thurst - No
Blessed are the meek - I don't think so
Blessed are the merciful - No
Blessed are the pure in heart - OK - with reservation
Blessed are ye - against you falsely - Everyone.
So - maybe Wright does and what he says are two different things? (I'm not sure) But from what he has said - Sermon on the Mount really does not fit.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 3:44 PM
Moderatelad -- You quoted only the fifth chapter of Matthew. Skip over to the seventh chapter, which is was I was referring to. (It's still part of the same sermon.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:50 PM
I've belonged to a number of different churches in my time. I have heard a lot of edifying sermons. I have also heard a lot of drivel, some of it objectionable.
Sometimes I have challenged the preacher, sometimes I have not.
But I would be horrified to hear that I am somehow responsible for those sermons because I was sitting in a pew.
Most of this discussion is irrelevant and overheated (well, what a surprise...). Instead of talking about Mr Wright, I would like to know what Obama stands for...
Meurig
Posted by: meurig | March 18, 2008 4:06 PM
But it's not doing any damage. You even said so yourself: "I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama."
From what I'm gathering of the reaction to his speech, most people are very pleased and agreed with what he said. If anything, he has used this as another opportunity shine even brighter.
I still think this whole thing is ridiculous because no one is throwing as much dirt on Clinton and McCain and their relationships with controversial people as they are throwing on Obama. The thing with Geraldine Ferraro was in the news for like one day, but this thing with Wright has gone on far much longer than necessary.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 4:11 PM
M-lad, I don't get on here regularly, but still want to meet when you come to MacP. I'll buy lunch. Want to ask, what is your take on Psalm 137. How should we Christians read the anger expressed there?
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 4:20 PM
Ho Hum ???????????
All this time I believed there was ONE GOD who created US all, and he liked color so we are not all the same color...even whites! We are all brothers [and sisters] and there really is only one RACE ...........
H U M A N ! And each of the candidates therefore are ALL OF THE SAME RACE! I detect a lot of JUDGING going on in this blog and that saddens me most of all. That is supposed to be a No No also, isn't it?
Peace to All !
Posted by: OlderThanDirt | March 18, 2008 4:22 PM
Barack Obama is NOT a black man. Neither is he a white man. He is a reconciliation of both colours and as such represents what the USA most badly needs, racial reconciliation and harmony and cooperation that alone will get it out of the troubled state it is in and which seems to be getting worse by the day.
This should be as clear as day toeveryone with two intelligent brain cells working together but there are none so ignoreant as those who are proud of their ignorance.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, living in our global village, who US citizens choose as their President affects every person living. Just look at what the present incumbent has achieved on our behalf. His stupidity has become legendary and there are still nine months left in which he can do even worse.
Wake up America! You NEED Obama.
Posted by: Johor from New Zealand | March 18, 2008 4:22 PM
One summer I worked at a mission congregation in one of the poorest neighborhoods in southern California--ironically just a few blocks from where my law office used to be.
The neighborhood was majority Latino (probably half of whom are immigrants), with the second largest ethnic group being black. I'm an old white guy.
One of the teenagers at the congregation made a comment that America is like going over to your friend's house and thinking he has a nice home until you find out that his mother beats him.
Unless you can see that reality for people of color, it's impossible for white people to get what Reverend Wright is saying.
I certainly don't agree with everything Wright says, but having worked in that neighborhood, I now understand why he believed or said those things.
Posted by: Jay Egenes | March 18, 2008 4:27 PM
Here are a few quotes from the speech.
Kevin
I do not think that I could persuade you to like it but could you explain to me what, in your opinion, that Obama is saying in these quotes that is wrong.
"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."
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. 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."
Kevin I would say that to a large extent he is singing a song that has a lot in harmony with your own tune.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 4:41 PM
kevin s wrote: "We also know enough about McCain to know that he doesn't believe we should attack Muslims for religious reasons related to his dispensationalist theology."
Of course McCain doesn't believe that.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to seize control of the world's last, biggest, richest supplies of high-quality, cheaply extractable oil that happen to lie beneath the soil of their countries.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to enrich the already rich war-profiteers of the military-industrial complex with endless war.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear in which they will yield their civil liberties and economic aspirations to an authoritarian corporate state.
We know enough about McCain to know that he is a bought-and-paid-for tool of giant corporations and their lobbyists, that his own campaign organization is staffed and run by corporate lobbyists, and that he will conduct US foreign policy for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for his cronies and financial backers -- just like Cheney and Bush.
And we know enough about McCain to know that he will gladly use demented preachers like Hagee to manipulate the fears of weak-minded, ignorant dupes to get them to vote for Republicans like McCain who will turn around and kick them in the teeth.
And we know enough about you from reading your frequent comments here to realize that you are a partisan Republican whose pretense of even-handedness is a transparently laughable joke.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 4:43 PM
While I agree with much of what Wallis says in his post, his blaming of the so-called right-wing media machine for this is nonsense. Wallis misses the point that these clips come from a CD that the church was indeed selling. I suppose they believed that these comments by Rev. Wright were important enough to sell. This suggests a larger context that Obama was part of for twenty years.
Wallis' post says less about Obama than it does about Wallis. He unfortunately no longer provides a true alternative to the politics of the world. He is simply now a member of the religious left. The religious right is not a true Christian alternative; neither is the religious left. Wallis has unfortuntely lost his prophetic edge because he has sided with the left. Right and left are modern alternatives. I prefer to align myself with God's kingdom.
Posted by: Allan R. Bevere | March 18, 2008 4:59 PM
Was it Dirty Harry of whom it was said, "He's not prejudiced, he hates everybody"?
On another note, SecAni, yes kev is not even-handed but your approach won't change one who doesn't really want to be even handed.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 5:06 PM
"If you ever saw black radicals in the early 1970s you would understand immediately -- that's just what many of them wore."
Actually, what I was confused about was Jim's comment that showing clips of it was "designed to provoke stereotypes and fear." It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached. (And I think enough people are wearing them today that most people don't connect them with Black Power radicalism anymore.)
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 5:09 PM
" actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy."
You're too optimistic about the "moderates" in America. Most Americans are unwilling to hear that our country has supported terrorism overseas, no matter how gently the truth is phrased. If they were interested in knowing this, we wouldn't have done it. It's a leftist myth that the US government is able to support bad governments overseas because they keep most Americans in the dark about what is being done in their name. Most Americans simply don't care.
As for Obama's speech, it was good by political standards and good on some points, but cowardly on others, because he's a politician trying to win over precisely the kinds of people who go crazy if anyone says something that makes them uncomfortable. Out of all the specific things that Wright said, some good and some stupid, one of the comments that Obama singled out for refutation was about Israeli terror against Palestinians. Obama could have said that there has been terror on both sides and both sides need to repent and that our country has too often said nothing as our aid was used to kill innocent Palestinians. Or he could have said nothing at all on that issue. Instead he chose to tell the lie that would do his candidacy the most good--he said that Israel is our democratic ally and the root cause of the problems there is the rise of Islamic radicalism.
Posted by: Donald | March 18, 2008 5:24 PM
It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached.
They probably could have showed him wearing something else.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 5:40 PM
Donald wrote that Obama "chose to tell the lie that would do his candidacy the most good -- he said that Israel is our democratic ally and the root cause of the problems there is the rise of Islamic radicalism."
That comment also struck me as the one false note in an otherwise honest speech.
The truth that neither Barack Obama nor any other US politician will tell is: the root cause of the problems of the Middle East is oil.
Oil is the only reason that the "great powers" of the world have the slightest interest in the politics and conflicts of the Middle East. Oil is the only reason that the "great powers" of the world pour billions of dollars in "military aid" into that region, arming Israel and the Arab states alike, and fomenting and manipulating conflicts there by means of which they seek to gain power over the region's vast supplies of cheaply extractable, high-quality oil. That's the "great game" that has been going on for a century, since the vast ocean of oil was discovered under the desert sands.
Access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil has been explicitly defined as a "vital strategic interest" of the United States since FDR's administration, which began the "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family. This policy has been reaffirmed by every president since, including Jimmy Carter as well as George W. Bush.
Every aspect of US policy in the region revolves around that "vital strategic interest" -- including US support for governments as varied as the Likud government of Israel and the Baathist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (which the US helped to put in power to begin with and supported during the era of Saddam's worst atrocities against both the Iranian and Iraqi people).
That is a truth that I wish Barack Obama would speak.
When will there be peace in the Middle East? When the last drop of economically recoverable oil has been pumped and burned, that's when.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 5:43 PM
Mr. Wallis handled the CNN situation very well. I can truly sense the love of Christ in people like Wallis and others on "Sojourners". Lets not forget that Jesus spoke truth to the powers that be. We can never move forward as a country, if we continue to be divided. Stop the foolishness people. Obama has gone above and beyond to get us focused on the issues at hand.
Posted by: David | March 18, 2008 6:07 PM
"Instead of talking about Mr Wright, I would like to know what Obama stands for..."
If he had done this from the get-go, this issue never would have loomed so large.
"It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached."
It's racist that they didn't photoshop a tuxedo on him. You need to bridge the gap with more context and listen more. Duh. Best speech of all time!
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 6:32 PM
"We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims"
No. You are correct to suggest that oil is a major factor in our involvement in the Middle East, but that does not mean McCain believes we should attack Muslims, or that we should acquire it by force.
"We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to enrich the already rich war-profiteers of the military-industrial complex with endless war."
You will later go on to castigate me for my failure to be even-handed.
"in which they will yield their civil liberties and economic aspirations to an authoritarian corporate state."
Really, and what has McCain proposed that would move us in the direction of authoritarianism, and how is he asking you to give up your economic aspirations?
"We know enough about McCain to know that he is a bought-and-paid-for tool of giant corporations and their lobbyists"
And Obama is not? McCain has at least taken SOME political risk to stand up to special interests.
"and that he will conduct US foreign policy for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for his cronies and financial backers"
Oh, we KNOW this, do we?
"to manipulate the fears of weak-minded, ignorant dupes"
Glad you have so much faith in the voters. Perhaps you can be a shining beacon of reason to them all. Do you have a newsletter?
"you are a partisan Republican"
Any Republican is partisan, so I'm not sure why that qualifier is necessary, but yes, I freely admit my partisan leanings (unlike some).
"whose pretense of even-handedness is a transparently laughable joke."
What pretense of even-handedness? I have rather emphatically supported Hillary over Obama and McCain over Hillary.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 6:46 PM
I appreciate comments from I and I and John S about the potential helpfulness of this national dialogue. I pray for such.
I am not discouraged by disagreement or persons with different conclusions. I am not discouraged by persons passionately laying out their case.
I am discouraged by trying to figure out how to contibute towards a conversation that develops greater understanding.
I ask questions to persons who seem hostile but don't explain. And they don't respond. I try to explain things about Pastor Wright who challenge his statements. Rather than come back and say, "Well, yes I do see this, but I disagree with that" they just go back to "Well he's just wrong" stance.
I am saddened because I know great numbers of Black persons simply will not engage because they consider it a hopeless discussion. I am saddened at the lack of sorrow over our broken relationships. I am saddened when white brothers and sisters do not contribute the gift of listening and submission we could give; and instead place demands to conform.
I understand there are White Christians offended by Dr. Wright's comments. But why would one choose to reamin on their offense if understanding would lead to a removal of the sense of offense?
I have experienced all kinds of threats, loud voices, accusations and demands from African Americans in the last 30 years (but mostly a whole lot of love); I can't think of an instance in which the right course of action for me was not to listen and learn. That is not acquiesence, white guilt, avoidance, excusing, agreeing or patronizing. Maybe it is just because I needed to learn.
But it is a gift I can give; and in so doing I have been the recipient of the larger gift.
I was surprised at J Wallis' highlighting of the grainy video--altghough I grasped the point.
One thing, brothers and sisters I believe we need to do is stop pllaying lawyer with each other.
I know we are all particularly clever. But why am I more interested in jumping on the weakness or flaw or mistake in someone else's argument. It is OK to do so if the 'debate' is genuine and in love. But when we jump on errors/flaws without granting the gift of listening and understanding we really show ourselves to value misunderstanding/division/and being right over the building of loving relationships in which we can speak and live with greater truth and wisdom.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 6:58 PM
"But it's not doing any damage. You even said so yourself: "I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama"
Oh I don't know about that . Today I hear NPR taking phone calls on it . Obama has much support from those who grabbed on his message of hope , and uniting us.
I sure liked that message also.
According to a recent CDC report 50 percent of African American young ladies from the age of 14 to 19 have a STD . Very high percentage for other groups also , but no where close to 50 percent . To hear that STDs is a secret plan made up by the USA , or as one blogger here blames Reagan , it takes away from the fact we all want kids not to be contracting them . Obama would have promoted the view for protection and promoted a value system that portrayed individual choices caused STDS in my opinion .
I did not hear Obama's speech , and because of some of the articulated comments here I tend to perhaps be more understanding , but the majority of people in this country heard the sound bites of Wright , not Obamas speech , nor been privy to some of the comments here .
Obama's campaign has been badly damaged . Big time .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 7:04 PM
Mick--To me this whole controversy is all about Obama's campaign;
But, the meaning, potential, purpose of it has nothing to do with Obama's campaign.
We need to be listening to God's word and purposes in this matter; his purposes for a nation and church devastated by racial brokenness.
Our dialogue as Christian brothers and sisters on a blog given to moving beyond a polarized, politicized, division--could manifest the power of the Gospel.
Why, as the public dialogue descends into hollaring and dirty politics can't we model the healing love of Jesus. If the Gospel cannot bring healing to a racially divided church--of what point is the Gospel?
That was Dr. King's point in quote I included on other thread. i.e. his question wondering about what kind of god is worshipped in these beautiful southern churches with great Christian education complexes.
I thank you for modeling a heart and mind seeking to not just know but live the Truth.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 7:31 PM
I would back Senator Obama over Senator Clinton and will vote for McCain over both.
With McCain, who is my senator, I have seen a man who could make mistakes but come back with integrity, a man who has proven himself in any number of ways that anyone should respect. He stands up for what he thinks is right despite the opposition and has my conservative values.
Obama looks to me to be a younger version of the same. I think he is honest and no where near the radical many have tried to paint him to be. He is a dreamer, but that doesn't make him a far left liberal. The quotes show that I think.
Senator Clinton? She just brings too much baggage. I am surprised to hear that you would support Her over Obama, Kevin. You seem more conservative than that. Is it just that you think McCain wins if she is his opponent? Is it because you follow Rush Limbaugh's advice? Current numbers do not bear out that Senator McCain wins over her but it is too soon to tell.
In any case I showed you what impressed me in Senator Obama's speech. Hope that satisfied you.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 7:37 PM
What's funny kevin is that you are quick to defend McCain and justify who endorses him, but you don't do the same for the other candidates.
If Obama is going to be tied to Rev. Wright's remarks and be held responsible for them, then why can't people hold McCain responsible for John Hagee's and other's remarks/beliefs? That has been my point all along, and you have proven it by sticking by McCain and justifying his ties to controversial people.
Mick: if you didn't hear/read Obama's speech you would know that any damage was turned around. Please continue reading the post you quoted me from:
From what I'm gathering of the reaction to his speech, most people are very pleased and a