That's exactly the problem. If Obama wants to run for minister-in-chief that's fine. But he's running for President, and that involves respecting that we are all equal, not just those who share his religious views.

By clinging to his religion, the effect is no different from GWB and Reagan and other Republicans who have publicly legitimized prejudice in the garb of fundamentalist Christianity. In South Carolina, for example, Obama sent the message that homophobia is just fine as long it comes from the mouth of a black minister.

Such legitimization of hate and bigotry by public officials through public support of hateful men in minister's collars is dangerous to this society, whether it comes from the right or the left, from white mouths or black mouths. Given the pernicious influence of religious fundamentalism in this country over the last generation, it is definitely the most worrying aspect of a potential Obama presidency.

I am absolutely fascinated to learn that there is at least one person out there, existing during the Bush presidentcy, who believes that the "legitimazation of hate and bigotry" is the most worrying aspect of a potential Obama presidency. Wow. I wonder if dk also thought "too much wonky eggheaded dithering analysis and an unwillingness to take risks" was the most worrying aspect of a potential Bush presidency.

Jen, you seem to be coming from a position that hate and bigotry is a monopoly of the right. My point is that religious fundamentalism comes in right-wing and left-wing forms, and politicians on either side who defend and legitimize such fundamentalists are both dangerous to this country.

Your post was dripping with so much irony, it is difficult to know whether you truly understand this point, so I thought I should spell it out again as clearly as possible.

It wasn't dripping with irony, it was dripping with sarcasm. I understand your point. I just think it's moronic.

" thought I should spell it out again as clearly as possible"

Since it still makes zero sense to anyone who's paying attention either to the Obama campaign or has an iota of knowledge about the religious traditions at issue, maybe you should either take another stab at it or come to terms with the possibility that you just might not have a clue...and STFU.

So, Obama approves of welcoming the bigot McClurkin on his campaign stage in South Carolina to exploit homophobia as a way to get votes, and you think this is about having knowledge of religious traditions? Obama welcomes and defends the bigot Wright because it gave him a leg up in community politics (and got him off a self-destructive personal path that he described in detail in his own book), and you think this about having knowledge of religious traditions?

If bigots want to feel good about themselves by gathering in a house of worship, more power to them. But civic office holders who legitimize these people's hatred are a danger to the body politic.

Hatred and bigotry is no less wrong just because it is preached by ministers. I guess telling people to STFU and calling them moronic when they disagree with you may be part of your religious traditions. That is not surprising.

Mayhap the problem, which is by no means limited to dk, is that as a society we have become conditioned to assume legitimization comes automatically through simple association in the public sphere. Because Senator Obama has worshipped at Reverend Wright's church for twenty years, he must agree with the pastor's inflammatory language. Because Senator Obama allows McClurkin to share the campaign stage, he must agree with his homophobia and bigotry.

This gay liberal activist puts far more value in the words spoken by Senator Obama rather than those of the people around him. While homogeneity of expression and presentation is politically correct, dissenting opinions are (or were) part of the American cultural ethos.

My idealism only stretches so far, however. I do wish that Senator Obama had never been associated with McClurkin and that Reverend Wright were less vituperative, if only for the sake of political expediency. Making the assumption that the beliefs of others associated with Senator Obama are beliefs that he shares is intellectually lazy...but when was the last time the American people were motivated to inform themselves?

Rob, you are completely off in your "explanation" of what I am saying (not sure if you are being intentionally misleading or not on that front).

If Obama shared (at least consciously) the worst of McClurkin's and Wright's views, this whole situation would be much easier. I'm sure then many more people would reject Obama, because many people (at least consciously) find the views of McClurkin and Wright to be odious.

Rather, Obama is a cynic, and lacks confidence. He does not (consciously) agree with those ministers, but he is willing to have them around to gain political advantage among those who do agree with them, and to find personal fulfillment in a community no matter how filled with hatred against others that that community may be.

And nowhere did I say that McClurkin and Wright shouldn't have the right to express their views. That would lead to the "politically correct" (and, as an aside, can we please stop using that facile expression?) homogeneity.

My point is that it behooves those who want to be civic leaders to take a moral position, call out such statements as hateful and bigoted, and make that position clear, not just in those pretty speeches you seem to rely on, but through real actions such as walking out of churches led by bigots and hatemongers, and making it clear that bigots and hatemongers should are not allowed on your campaign stages, etc.

dk,

Your logic echoes that of George Bush's foreign policy; only people who share your views get the divine privilege of talking to you.

"take a moral position, call out such statements as hateful and bigoted, and make that position clear":

You can't do this if your attitude is "la la la I can't hear your hateful statements."

Not campaigning with McClurkin would have left Obama a lot less obligated to speak against homophobia; he could have sailed under the radar on that one instead of "making his position clear" within a community that, unfortunately, doesn't share it very widely.

The silent treatment is not a moral position.

Anonymous: Obama (or anyone) can speak against homophobia (and, more importantly, take actions against homophobia) anytime they want. They do not need to invite McClurkin on their campaign stage to do so.

Obama need not be silent. Instead of inviting McClurkin on the stage, Obama could have gotten on the stage himself and talked about specific policies he would advocate as President on the subject.

Who said the attitude is "la la la I can't hear your hateful statements." The attitude is "I am aspiring to a civic office, some people in some private religious houses are hateful bigots; they are entitled to their private opinions but they are wrong and I will not be a member of such private religious houses and will not use them in my campaign or have them be my surrogates just to pick up votes." No "la la la" there. There is a lot of engagement there.

And trying to analogize to George Bush's refusal to recognize anti-war opinions is a stretch. Why don't you try analogizing it to what relationship you think politicians should have with the KKK.

dk,

(reply from supposedly "anonymous," which was the computer's idea and not my intention)

"George Bush's refusal to recognize anti-war opinions"

That's not what I analogized it to; I analogized it to his foreign policy, i.e. his refusal to conduct diplomacy with any nation that hasn't already capitulated to his demands.

The KKK's agenda is to promote white supremacy; no politician should have any business with that agenda.

But most organizations, and a all people, have opinions on more than one thing (Jeremiah Wright, for instance, is one of the few national leaders in the black church who has really challenged the black community on its reflexive homophobia; should I think Obama rejects Wright's anti-homophobia if he rejects the man?)

It is reasonable to engage with someone DESPITE their homophobia (especially if it provides an occasion to propose that to be black and religious doesn't have to mean being homophobic); it would be unreasonable to embrace someone BECAUSE of it.

I would advocate talking with the KKK DESPITE their ideas about white supremacy, only there wouldn't be much left to talk about, would there?

If you look at Obama's legislative record in Illinois and the US Senate, you'll see a remarkable record of someone who picks an issue that a lot of different constituencies care about and then brings them to the table to talk about how to achieve common goals on THAT issue despite their being "enemies" politically. That's how he gets stuff done.

No one has yet (correctly) cited any of Wright's statements that I agree are "hateful" or "bigoted" (being against white privilege is not being against whites, and anger is not hate), so I don't really have the problem you do. With reference to all of the other people Obama has talked to despite the fact that they make my stomach turn in one way or another...well, that's why he'll make a much better leader of a very diverse country than I would.

Well, under that analogy I guess no white person should have given up membership at all white country clubs (or no Christian should have given up membership at no-Jews-allowed country clubs, etc.).

Personally, I think it's a good thing that those kind of clubs essentially no longer exist (or if they do, they are considered pariahs by much of civilized society).

But I suppose under Obama's logic we should revive them, join them, and wax on and on about they are our "community."

Frankly, I thought we had evolved beyond that, but I guess Obama is making it cool again for some people. Count me out. All I hope is that the Democratic Party survives the Obama plan.

df,

I'm sorry, did Obama go out and join a no-whites-allowed church since yesterday? I might have been arguing based on a mistaken premise.

If not, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

sorry, i meant dk

Your point seemed to be that you would advocate talking with the KKK so long as their only purpose wasn't to promote racism. Well, if that's the case, all-white or all-WASP, etc. country clubs are fine too. I mean, those clubs are there so that people can golf, have tea parties, etc. The fact that people there are racist is just one part of who they are, right?

So, if I were a white WASP, I would just stay in that club. I wouldn't even openly say anything to them in disagreement about it (well, unless I was in the midst of a Presidential campaign, and then when I got caught being a member in the club in which the leader of the club had said lots of hateful things, in which case first I would lie about hearing them being said, and then say I had in fact heard them, but that I disagreed with them, but wouldn't leave the club because it was my "community"...wow, that was a mouthful, who would ever buy that, right??).

Cynical, weak people would, in fact, take that route.

dk,

I'm sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but I actually have no idea what you're talking about, criticizing, or advocating. Perhaps the hypotheticals were a bad idea.

I think the analogies are a bad idea, and to be honest I think it's rather offensive and predictible that often when someone disagrees with the Obama rules, they get branded a moron, or intellectually lazy, or told to STFU, or compared to George Bush (all of which occurred to me here today, you having done the last of the three).

Believe it or not, but it is possible to criticize Obama from the left. In fact, it is unfortunately all too easy.

"it is possible to criticize Obama from the left"

Sure it is. I've done it plenty myself. I just don't think arguing that he should leave his church because his pastor is influenced by liberation theology and insists on the centrality of white privilege to America's politics and cultural identity is a very convincing way to do it.

"I think it's rather offensive and predictible that often when someone disagrees with the Obama rules, they get branded a moron, or intellectually lazy, or told to STFU"

I agree with you there; that's why I don't do any of those things. (The GWB comparison had intellectual content and I stand by it; also, you did it first in your OP.) But it's really true that I'm not sure what your argument is about Wright. I disagree with you on McClurkin, but I do get your point. You haven't made a point about Wright, just thrown a bunch of labels at him. Leftists do that too, but they're not arguing when they do.

"I guess telling people to STFU and calling them moronic when they disagree with you may be part of your religious traditions. That is not surprising."

Liberalism is a religion, now? Oh, I completely agree!

The GWB comment did not have intellectual content; comparing Bush's dismissal of the viewpoints of sovereign nations, to a strategy of engaging religious bigots by other means than attending their sermons for 20 years and inviting them to campaign for you are completely different situations, and any comparison is intellectually dishonest. So, despite your protestations, you do "do these things."

I think the point I made is quite clear. My point is that I don't think that civic office holders should belong to organizations that espouse bigotry, whether it is the KKK, McClurkin or Wright's pastorships, or an all white country club. You seem to consider the pastorships different from the others, presumably because they cloak their hate and bigotry in religion. I don't give religion that kind of pass.

And for those who call themselves liberals and yet support a candidate who uses right wing talking points on Social Security and Health Care Reform, who has voted to continue funding for the war in Iraq because he "didn't want to play chicken with the troops," and who is open to using the idea of funding religious schools with public money, I think you have a very strange view of what it means to be a liberal.

I think you need some perspective DK

Obama's pastor's words ring uncomfortably true
By James B. Bennett
Article Launched: 03/20/2008 01:45:30 AM PDT

The scrutiny of Sen. Barack Obama's relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor of Obama's Chicago church, highlights the complex intersections of religion and race in the United States.

Neither Wright's purportedly inflammatory statements nor the pressure on Obama to repudiate them are anything new. The tangled webs of religion and race are two of the most persistent themes in American history.

Wright's simultaneous embrace of Christianity and condemnation of the United States, mostly for its failure to live up to Christian ideals of social justice, has been a part of African-American rhetoric since the first slave conversions to Christianity. Looking back even further, preaching condemnation against the nation stretches back to the Old Testament. The jeremiad, a sermon calling for repentance to avoid judgment, is named after the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, an irony critics of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fail to grasp.

Even Obama, who has recently distanced himself from Wright, would do well to remember the rhetorical tradition of Wright's criticisms have a long history in the speeches and writings of African-American leaders who are exalted by black and white Americans alike. Frederick Douglass, whose autobiography of his escape from slavery to freedom is a mainstay of American civic education, spoke in terms similar to those for which Wright is castigated:

"I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral
Advertisement
indignation. In doing this I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins."

Even Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy political candidates of all races and parties try to claim, shared Wright's condemnation of American aggression, criticizing "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."

Wright's call that "God damn America" creates a paradox for his critics, especially those on the Christian right, because he takes seriously the idea of the United States as a Christian nation.

Wright's denomination, the United Church of Christ, descends directly from the Puritans who settled in New England. The Puritans wanted to create a Christian society that would be "a city upon a hill" that would be a model for all the world. But they also understood that God would hold them accountable for their failings, since Puritan jeremiads highlighting failures were far more common than sermons claiming success. (War was a leading sign of God's judgment.)

By the 19th century, black preachers had adapted the jeremiad-style sermon, calling upon American Christians to be faithful to the ideals of equality and justice rooted not only in the sacred texts of Christianity, but also in the sacred texts of the nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Alongside this historical amnesia, calls for Obama to distance himself from Wright reflect a racial bias as well. The racial double-standard in America requires a member of a minority group to dissociate him- or herself from fellow "troublemakers" in ways not expected of whites.

Racial similarity between Obama and Wright (and, earlier, with Louis Farrakhan) as much as religious relationships account for the pressure for Obama to publicly denounce the former leader of his church.

At the same time, Sen. John McCain's religious supporters have received little scrutiny. Conservative Christian supporters such as the Revs. Rod Parsley and John Hagee have a long record of hate-filled statements about Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and most anything besides their form of Christianity.

White Republican candidates have not faced similar pressures to repudiate views of other politically vocal conservative Christian leaders, such as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, who have long pointed to evidence of God already having "damned" America in catastrophes such as Sept. 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina. They just disagree with Wright on what sins ought to provoke divine wrath.

The rhetoric that has brought Wright into the spotlight is a distillation of the dual experiences of hope and alienation that have always characterized the African-American religious experience. Wright's call for God's judgment is not a rejection of either the Christian faith or the American nation. Rather, like his forebears, Wright's preaching is an affirmation of religious and democratic ideals and a call to uphold them. The uproar over Wright's preaching is not because he is wrong, but rather the uncomfortable realization he is right.
JAMES B. BENNETT is an assistant professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University.

合金管