Thursday, March 20, 2008

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright

Yes, there’s lots of talk about how Jeremiah Wright has said offensive things, and I’m not the first to point out that the religious right leaders have said similar things (see here), but I wanted to pull a bunch of these comments together into one place and do a direct comparison and talk about who is offended and why. And a bunch of other things.



Wright vs. Prominent right-wing religious leaders

For one thing, I don't see how this is, for lack of a better term, new news. I remember some flap back in November about this, so it makes me wonder why this has come up again. But, let's review what Wright has said that's got people so up in arms.

Wright: "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." (link)

Wright: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." (link)

That's pretty harsh -- he wants God to damn America for treating some people very badly. I'd think God could do something better, like fix things. But anyway. He's definitely a nutcase, but is he any different from many other religious leaders? If not, why does it seem like the religious right are the ones with the bunched-up panties? Let's compare.

Jerry Falwell(speaking just after 9/11): "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." (link)

So, unlike Wright, he's not asking God to damn America, he's saying God already did. I'm not sure which is worse. Plus, Wright, at least in the first quote, seems to think it would be punishment for treating people unjustly, while Falwell is saying it happened because we treat people justly. Wow. Let's move on.

Pat Robertson: "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." (link)

Do I need to comment on this? He's advocating destroying Washington, D.C. with a nuclear bomb. I don't care if he intended it to be a joke (and it doesn't seem like it), that is a statement from a whackjob. Lest you think that is an anomaly, take a look at this article (via Ed's blog) about Francis Schaeffer by his son:
My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany. When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Wow, I'm glad something like that doesn't happen these days". *sigh*. Yeah, it does. Let's look at the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. He believes he is the second coming of Jesus, and held a coronation ceremony anointing him as such. Oh, and he was crowned by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.)

Moon: "There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?" (link)
Moon wants to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. He owns the Washington Times!! Neil Bush travels with him!

This issue could doom Obama's candidacy, and, yet, Republican leaders (and a few Democrats) suffer hardly at all for arguably worse associations. Not to mention that these right-wing evangelists have much more power than Jeremiah Wright. Scared yet?

Obama's Response

A couple of days ago, Obama gave a speech in response to the furor about Wright. It was a pretty good speech -- I thought that it was a good move politically to face this head-on.

I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Well, it's a start. I'm still unconvinced -- after all, Obama has attended Wright's church for a long time. I do not trust him on religious views -- he isn't much different from Mike Huckabee on that score (an excellent overview is here). Obama claims that his religion won't affect how he acts as president, but I don't see how that could be possible. Obama, while in favor of "civil unions", is still against gay marriage -- on religious grounds. Regardless, I find the attacks on him about Wright to be intensely ironic, especially given the next section...


McCain and Hagee

McCain has recently accepted (and was "honored" by it) the endorsement of John Hagee, yet another right-wing televangelist. He has condemned Harry Potter as witchcraft (the ability of these people to determine fact from fiction astounds me).

Hagee: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." (I cannot find a primary link for this, but it was said on NPR's Fresh Air on Sept 18, 2006)

This makes me sad -- after all, McCain had called Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 campaign. Presumably, this would include Hagee as well. That was one of the things that raised my respect for McCain. Now? Has he recanted that statement? Does he not realize who Hagee is? Or is he simply pandering to the religious right? If the last (and let's be realistic), how much should we crucify a politician for doing what a politician does? Yet, part of his appeal (and Obama's too) is that they don't fit the traditional politician mold.

I'd like American politicians to be far more secular, but I'd settle for a little less hypocrisy.

7 comments:

Charlotte Robinson said...

FYI, Hillary Clinton was key in passing Gay Marriage in Massachusetts by having her campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe, quietly calling legislators to sway their votes. Obama did nothing.... Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Braxton Thomason said...

Jason Kuznicki has a most excellent post on a nearby topic at http://positiveliberty.com/2008/03/obamas-rorschach-test.html

Anonymous said...

I don't see how marriage (of any kind) is even relevant here. We're still talking about the Federal government, right?

As it pertrains to the tax code, I don't see why marriage should even be special. We already have a concept of "civil unions" there that extends to any number of people of any sex in the group. We call those "corporations".

Braxton Thomason said...

That's a very good point about marriage -- in fact, I agree, I don't think the federal (or any) government should have any say in what private citizens do, or how they choose to organize their families/households. I'm planning to make a longer post on that topic someday. In the meantime, I again refer to a post by Jason Kuznicki on marriage as a defense against state intrusion on private lives: http://positiveliberty.com/2008/02/marriage-against-the-state-revisited.html

I'd like to come up with a way to reconcile the two views probably in the next few weeks.

Now, as to why it's relevant to this discussion, I brought it up to show that Obama does not always divorce his policy opinions from his religious opinions.

Anonymous said...

Danny Davis carried Moon's wife's crown and Roscoe Bartlett(R-Md) carried her robes. Davis, to his credit, quit attending Moon functions as of 2004 though the deceptive Moon organzation still uses him name.

Sorry to say conservatives are still sucking off that Moon overseas cash through his 3 billion dollar subsidy to right wing politics, the Washington Times.

Moon and Moon's money.

Moon is the father of today's conservatism.

Anonymous said...

The difference here is not which religious guy is more wacky, but there is a big difference in speaking at college, or accepting the endorsment of someone in the public eye, and going to that person's church 20 years and giving them big bucks for their work.

Braxton Thomason said...

I'm not convinced that it's worse for Obama to have contributed to Wright's church than it is for a whackjob to have contributed heavily to the party.

That is, I'm more comfortable with a politician making a private donation to a church, than I am with a church making repeated, large public donations to a politician.

I'm not quite willing to let Obama off the hook for attending the guy's church, but I respect him for addressing the problem in an honest manner.