Barack Obama was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago when the pastor was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who's said some things that a lot of people don't want a President who believes. Most of them relate to Wright's opinion that God is a god of justice, and that if chronic or widespread injustice gets ignored or papered over long enough, God takes it out on whole countries at a time, and that the US is still a country with enough systematic injustice to qualify. Whether or not you agree with his opinion about every one of those injustices, you cannot deny this: this is a religious opinion, a theological opinion. Wright's also on record has having given at least a tepid endorsement of another religious figure, Louis Farrakhan, former leader of a group that a lot of Americans don't like for their religious opinions, the black-nationalist Nation of Islam. Wright doesn't endorse everything in Farrakhan's theology, just Farrakhan as a person, saying that people don't give him enough credit for the good he's done or for being basically a nice guy; basically, Wright's opinion is that the good Farrakhan has done in his life outweighs any bad you can come up with. And in case that's not obvious, let me point out that Wright's opinion on this is also a religious opinion, just like (for that matter) the opinions of Farrakhan that most Americans abhor.
So, unsurprisingly, the American voters want to know which if any of those opinions Obama shares with Wright, and by extension with Farrakhan. The Constitution specifically says that the government can't impose a religious-beliefs test or restriction on the Presidency, but there's nothing in law or tradition that says that voters can't decide that someone whose religious beliefs are abhorrent to them might not make good decisions and vote against them on that basis. So over the past month or two, Barack Obama has come under repeated pressure to denounce Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. In his famous speech on race and religion, "A More Perfect Union," Obama denounced some of Wright's religious opinions (without specifying which ones) but stopped short of denouncing him as a religious leader; he was already on record as having denounced both Farrakhan's opinions and Farrakhan himself.
John McCain is barely a member of any church at all, really, but in order to convince social conservatives inside the Republican Party that he was on their side, he sought out the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who's also said a lot of things that a lot of people don't want a President who believes, about how Catholics are all dupes of Satan and about how much he's praying for all-out war in the Middle East, the whole rest of the world versus the US and Israel, so God will have to intervene. You know, really wacky stuff, but however wacky it is, you can't deny that these are religious opinions. So John McCain is starting to come under some of the same pressure that Barack Obama's been under, to denounce John Hagee. So far, all McCain has done is say that if there's anything Hagee has said that you disagree with, McCain disagrees with that, while agreeing with all the stuff that Hagee has said that you agree with. You, in particular, each and every one of you. Which is such a silly thing to say, so stupid sounding, that the pressure's not really going to let up, is it, until he's denounced John Hagee?
Hillary Clinton, as I've commented before, has her own lesser "pastor problem," namely her membership in a weekly prayer group that's lead by Doug Coe, a man who thinks that all of America's problems would be solved if Christians took "discipleship," which he defines as blind obedience to their pastors, as seriously as the mafia did, or even better, as seriously as the Nazis and the Communists did. And while I think this idea is even wackier than anything attributed to Wright or Hagee, even I would like to point out how clearly and unambiguously these are his religious opinions, as a religious leader. A few people have asked Hillary Clinton about her ongoing relationship with Doug Coe. So far her answers when questioned about it have been pretty dismissive; I think maybe she's counting on her (BS) liberal reputation to get people to think that of course she doesn't believe any of those things, so of course she doesn't need to denounce Doug Coe or his Fellowship Foundation. But a fair number of voters won't be happy until she does.
And I'm embarrassed to say that has taken me months to say, "hey, wait a minute," to realize that I have a problem with all of these demands from the voters. I don't see anything wrong with asking a politician for their own opinion. I don't see anything wrong with quoting their pastor, or anybody on the planet, to a politician and asking them if they, personally, agree with that statement. But hey, wait a minute, as I was just saying ...
Since when is it the business of a future President of the United States to denounce any religious leader in the US? Or, more sinisterly, any religious opinion held by one? Isn't that an awfully ugly thing, an awfully dangerous thing, for them to be doing? Do we really want to live in a country where religious leaders are denounced by the President, and where we judge our presidential candidates by whether or not they're willing to go on record in advance as denouncing them? Because now that I've thought of it in those terms, that sounds like the ultimate in slippery slopes to me, a class A-1 really bad idea. So maybe we should stop asking them to do exactly that, and instead ask the real question, the closest thing to a fair question in there. Knock if off with asking Obama if he denounces Wright or Farrakhan or denounces their religious beliefs; ask him (if you must) if he agrees with those specific opinions that bother you, ask him if he thinks racial injustice in America is so bad that God will punish all of us for it. Knock if off with asking John McCain to denounce John Hagee; ask him (if you must) if he thinks a nuclear war between Israel and the rest of the Middle East is a Biblical prophesy that he should fulfill, ask him if he thinks Catholics are devil worshippers. Knock it off if you were thinking of asking Hillary Clinton to denounce Doug Coe; ask him (if you don't think the question is silly) if she thinks America would be better off if everybody in America was a Christian and if all Christians obeyed their pastors with Nazi-like unquestioning obedience.
Because I've got to tell you: if I wake up and find that I'm in an America where certain pastors and certain churches are openly denounced from the White House's presidential podium, I will suddenly get even more nervous about freedom of religion in America than I already am.
- Mood:
tired
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
bradhicks- J. Brad Hicks
- about the author
Comments
I actually came to just the exact opposite conclusion. Religiops leaders in America have too much power in America. It seems as if religious leaders are becoming de facto king makers. If a leader has the "right" kind of support (Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms), then they lead their flock to the voting booth. If the religious leader is the "wrong" kind (black, criticizes America), then they are a liability. The religious leader confers a certain kind of credibility on the politician.
I also disagree with your comparison of the pressure being placed on Clinton, Obama and McCain. It has not been equal. The majority of this country is white, as is the media, and a "scary" black preacher is more frightening to them than the most alarming racist, anti-semitic, apocolyptic rantings of a white preacher.
With the exception of his comments on the AIDS epidemic** being created by the government, Wright's comments were essentially what people like Susan Sontag and other people said about 9/11--it was an example of "blowback." The idea that America are the white hats and the heroes in the world is a patriotic fantasy. The truth is that we are an empire, and the creation and maintenance of an empire is a bloody, brutal business.
**Note: Most Black people, since we live on the margins and don't enjoy mainstream privileges, have a more critical view of America than most white Americans. Black people always have that double-vision-- the story we all get told in school and on the news about America and the reality. A survey from the 1990's that showed that something like 70% of whites believed that racism was not a major problem. The same question asked in a survey in the 1960's had the same results.
So no matter what the era, whites, in general, don't see that racism is a problem, while the vast majority of black people are screaming about it: racism in healthcare, schools, housing, the justice system, the police. And no one seems to be listening. Imagine beating your head against that wall your entire life, the sheer on the psyche. I bet that your natural, rational skepticism about the world would sour and turn into paranoia.
Then look at our history. The Tuskeegee experiments. Blacks know that things like this happen in America, so we aren't complacent about what the government will and won't do to it's citizens.
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. It sounds to me like he's describing a karmic, dyadic cosmogony. I don't think this has inherently religious or theological denotations.
That quibble aside, enjoyable read. :)
Namaste.
Didn't you get the memo? All the American voters care about is the "character" of our potential public officials, and the clearest way to determine that character is by who they associate with. At least, that's what corporate media says voters care about, and why they spend so much time covering these associations.
And now the dimwits are screaming for Obama to denounce assorted rap artists, and hip-hop culture in general.
Then I guess they didn't think much of Jesus' character, since he consorted with bad people? Or don't they think of that?
I agree. I may be a bible-thumping fundie *cough*, but I'd rather see a President who doesn't feel he NEEDS clergy endorsement than one who seeks it and later denounces it. Just tell me what YOU believe about these issues; then you shouldn't need to backpedal away from the controversial ones.
I do think, personally, that every one of the three, one of which will be Prez, suffers from serious suckage. I can think of three Naval officers who would be better Presidents than McCain, whose blogs I comment upon and with whom I have exchanged emails.
I can think of at least three wimmen who would make a better President than Hillary, a couple of which I have corresponded with.
I don't know many folks of African ancestry, but I betcha Juliette Ochieng (AKA Baldilocks, AKA Half-Luo) would make a better President than either Hillary or Barack.
Besides, she's already sworn the Oath, being a retired Sergeant in the USAF.
Sorry, I don't think anyone who will get to be President is actually fit for the office.
I'll prolly bite my tongue really hard and vote for McCain. There will be some effusion of blood in my mouth, I reckon.
All the best, Justthisguy AKA rnk
excellent point and well-made
But yes, I share your discomfort with an America in which a president, rather than simply stating that zie does not believe a certain idea, decries everyone who does. That sets a very bad precedent indeed for both religious and secular ideologies.