Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Thursday March 20, 2008
Category: FaithWhere should we look next?
These are scary days. A minister says something, some things, that are reprehensible, awful. Because he is the minister to a presidential candidate the things are elevated, scrutinized, analyzed.
Does the candidate share the minister's views? Is the candidate just like the minister?
No says the candidate several times over. No.
Still not good enough for many who insist that this is a massive problem. To be part of such a church for so long the critics argue is to give implicit endorsement to the pastor's horrid words.
Let's say that the critics are right. Let's grant them the argument. They are right. Obama never should have remained part of this church for 20 years.
So how many then?
How many years would have been acceptable? 18? 12? 5? 2 months and 17 days?
How many?
Should he have remained friends with the pastor? Or is friendship unacceptable?
More importantly, what of every other political candidate in America?
Should we undertake an exhaustive review of the sermons of each and every pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam to make sure that they aren't offensive?
If not, why not? If Obama can be disqualified because of Jeremiah Wright who knows what kind of dirt can be dug up on other pastors?
Why not send political party representatives into the churches to monitor the activity of elected parishioners? Did they stand at controversial moments? Did they applaud? Did they say Amen? Clearly these things matter now.
To be thorough it would also be very important to find out just how much money elected officials were giving to these churches. That would help determine just how serious they are about their commitment to the church.
Since this is about religion though we shouldn't stop with houses of worship. It would also be important to monitor their radio, Internet, and television use. Were they illicitly listening to offending clerics out of the public eye? If so why? What do they have to hide? We need to know.
There is actually something that would make this sort of investigation a whole lot easier... a state church. If only there were a single church run by the state answering these questions would be so much easier. The government could monitor all the records and record all the sermons and put them up on a website... www.monitoryourelectedofficialsinchurch.gov.
I'm going to go register the domain name right now.
Filed Under: barack obama, casting stones, jeremiah wright
posted by David Kuo @ 1:04am Permalink 
Email This 
Add to:
Subscribe
Comments
David, you asked:
Should we undertake an exhaustive review of the sermons of each and every pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam to make sure that they aren't offensive?
If not, why not? If Obama can be disqualified because of Jeremiah Wright who knows what kind of dirt can be dug up on other pastors?
The reason Wright receives extra scrutiny is that he has been trumpeted as Obama's spiritual mentor and was placed on his website as a witness to Obama's character and fitness to be president. Do we not have a right to know something about the positions taken by the man who makes these claims?
I don't know a thing about the pastor at the churches attended by Bush, Cheney, Gore, McCain or the Clintons and I strongly suspect it is because they were either not put forward as character references or don't say offensive things on a regular basis. Just as a politician subjects him/herself to scrutiny when they become a candidate, a pastor does the same when he agrees to endorse a candidate in his official capacity.
As to dirt being dug up, this is irrelevant. How would learning about the secret impropriety of some pastor have any relevance to the trustworthiness of the members of his congregation (unless they knew about the indiscretion)? Are all 10,000 members of Ted Haggards's church tainted by his private failings?
I do understand that there is a slippery-slope argument to be made in hyper-analyzing pastor's positions but this situation is nowhere near the precipice.
Posted by: Matty | March 22, 2008 6:46 AM
David, what Jesus "said" held what He believed and what He "was." In fact, He was the "Word" of God, made flesh. Those that "listened to Him," became believers and followers. They were called "Christians." Jesus "like." It is very, very, important, to look at what people listen to and who they are following to determine what they believe and "who" they are. It is a main theme of the New Testament. We are also taught by Jesus and the Apostles to be concerned with a person's doctrine and beliefs to determine if they are in the faith or not of it. The lack of consistency in the Christian world for doctrine is shocking. That is why so many get away with calling themselves "Christian" and are shown to be anything but. "Anything goes," is the modern religion of the masses. Or, as Jesus puts it, those on the wide path.
Posted by: Today's child | March 22, 2008 8:15 AM
How many here have seen the two complete sermons of Rev. Wright from which the "snippets have been taken."
I saw one of them on You Tube and they were completely different. There was no hatred. There was no racism. But it's because I CHOSE to look further. Maybe it's because I know how media manipulation works.
Rev Wright was successfully swiftboated with the help of the media for whatever their reasons - ratings, money, hatred. I want to know their motives and intent. FOX NEWS and ABC NEWS had bought all of Rev Wright's sermons on videotape. They had access to the complete videos and choose not to show them. If they had, we wouldn't even be discussing this.
I am concerned about the lack of intellectual curiosity of people who believe anything without digging deeper for the truth. I am concerned about media manipulation and lack of integrity. We've heard the saying: "go for the jugular". Well in media and PR, it's go for the limbic - the primitive emotional centers whose responses are fear, and anger. And once you've got people hooked into that, it's very difficult for them to think logically and reasonably about an issue. That requires activation of a different part of the brain - the neocortex.
And how many people know about the hypnotic trance most people go into while watching tv as they become more passive and receptive to whatever they're hearing and seeing. It has to do with THE FLICKERING OF THE BROADCAST SIGNALS!
Media and PR people know this. Why don't we?
What has happened to our society that we have allowed the media to frame the way we see things? That's giving our power and control away.
The way to change this is through what matters to the corporations that own these media outlets - their bottom line - MONEY. Using the power of the consumer to boycott the sponsors of programs spewing hatred and divisiveness. Then see how quickly it changes. That will send a message that what they are dong is not acceptable. If we do nothing, that's passive acceptance. We don't yet realize the power of the people. But more and more are waking up.
Posted by: patricia 74 | March 24, 2008 5:04 PM
Patricia
You hit the nail on the head. Like most of these so-called controversies, the Rev Wright situation was media driven. We have fake journalists who have no interest in presenting the facts, but rather crating a story that will get people curious enough to keep tuning in. It's all yellow journalism and the MSM should be called on it every time it happens. Unfortunately it's so frequent, that you could spend 24 hours a day firing out alerts!
At least with the availability of the internet, those who crave more substance and truth have somewhere to go. But there are so many people who prefer the distortions and the made-up stories because it fits in with their world-view, which they cling to despite evidence that they have been deceived.
Posted by: c kitty | March 24, 2008 7:17 PM
The double standard.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's gave this speech post 9/11 speech, to which Robertson responded I agree with you. To remind you on what they said, I took this quote from a blog:
"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
Hmmmm.
McCain said during the 2000 campaign:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
He then gave the 2006 commencement address at Falwell's University.
In the run up to that speech, ABC.com carried the following story:
When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America's "agents of intolerance." But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP's establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke "in haste" in 2000. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141)
Here is a YouTube video that summarizes this argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mrD7msvhUw
So why is it that Barack Obama has to "disavow" Wright, when no one is up in arms that McCain made nice with (deleted) people like Robertson and Fallwell, who have attacked virtually everyone who is different, and are far more divisive than some damn comments from Wright!
Is there a double standard? A black man makes... what I think aren't entirely... unjustified remarks about race in this country (I agree its divisive, but as Obama said, its real).. and Falwell blames the 9/11 attacks on gays and the ACLU?????
What?
So if you're a right wing zealot, its ok for a GOP candidate to pander... obviously...for political gain. But if you're Barack Obama, you can't disagree with your minister because he is saying divisive things. The black community can't express years of anger, but the religious right can spew hate garbage all day long.
Next time a conservative critic calls for Obama to disavow Wright, ask them to have McCain give the same speech Obama gave about disavowing the religious right.
Maybe you don't agree, but it's something to think about.
By the way, McCain can't even say.. that's my minister, it is PURE pandering.
Fallwell, McCain quotes from (http://www.laist.com/2007/05/15/jerry_falwell_7.php)
Posted by: Ken | March 25, 2008 5:49 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?