Falwell and Wright

Ezra Klein’s a smart guy, so I’m assuming this is a parody of liberal cluelessness rather than the real thing:

Does anyone believe a long association with Jerry Falwell's church would have done anything but help McCain in the Republican primary, and gotten Democrats tagged as anti-religion when they tried to point out Falwell's nuttiness in the general? It's fine to be a Christian extremist in America. It's fine to believe, and say publicly, that everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ into their heart will roast in eternal hellfire, fine to believe that the homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina and the feminists contributed to 9/11, fine to believe we must support Israel so the Jews can be largely annihilated in a war that will trigger the End Times, fine to believe we're in a holy battle with the barbaric hordes of Islam, fine to believe that we went to the Middle East to prove "our God is bigger than your God." What you can't believe is that blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country, that they're still face deep institutional discrimination, and that a country where 100 percent of the presidents have been rich white guys is actually run by rich white guys. More to the point, even if you do believe those things, you certainly can't be angry about it!

What horseshit. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might – might – have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor's foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon.

As to Ezra's larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it's also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright's sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright's outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it. The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright's sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that "blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country" and "still face deep institutional discrimination," I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright's remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.

(It's also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell's 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin's "my God is bigger than your God" remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies, albeit of the mealy-mouthed, "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety. Whereas I'm not holding my breath waiting for Reverend Jeremiah Wright to "clarify" his remarks.)

Comments

Couldn't agree more. He's being willfully blind. Frankly, he's not fooling anyone and not helping Obama, either.

Posted by Peder | March 17, 2008 12:25 PM

Wright is trouble.

Wright is an exhibitionist and has long been publicly committed to the idea that the white man will never give the black man an even break. I suspect he'd prefer to do down in history as the Willie Horton of 2008 who sank Obama's candidacy than as a minor figure who helped get Obama elected President.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:26 PM

Wright may well want to sabotage Obama.

Look how Wright invented out of whole cloth a Lifetime Achievement award just to give it to Louis Farrakhan at a gala event at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago last November 2. If he sticks to the same schedule, he'll hold another one on the Friday night before Election Tuesday. Who is he going to give his
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement award to then? The Beltway Snipers?

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

So 9/11 had nothing to do with American foreign policy?

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 12:32 PM

It's NOT horse shit!!! If you don't think there's a different standard going on here than how the hell do we account for George W. Bush and all the crazy hatin' people who endorsed, guided, and donated to him? You gotta be kidding me. We've given a pass on the conservative evangelical Christian comments for many many years.

Posted by leap1 | March 17, 2008 12:37 PM

I agree with Ross on the politics. I think Wright is a real danger to Obama, and his existence will probably dog him throughout the campaign.

As for what Wright said, particularly about 9/11, its not as clear what is objectionable (probably because its not clear exactly what Wright meant). The fact that the US has killed millions of other people around the world "without batting an eye", and then got the vapors because 3,000 people got killed here, is a bit hyperbolic, but otherwise just a mundane truth. Yes, its politically incorrect, but so what? By the way, I don't think this is much of an indictment of America because I see this as a reflection of a universal human nature rather than anything particular about the U.S.

The idea that 9/11 is "chickens coming home to roost", that somehow has a connection to our bombing Japan in WWII, seems to indicate that he believes it is God's retribution for our sins. This, of course, is crazy, but exactly the kind of crazy you expect from someone who believes in Divine intervention. Is it the idea that God would want to punish America, as opposed to always blessing America, what is so objectionable?

Posted by Jim W | March 17, 2008 12:41 PM

Meanwhile, over at Huffpo, a former member of the Christian right details how he and his father preached similarly inflammatory damn-America language, and were subsequently invited to dine with Reagan and Bush.

The real mystery is why Dems continue to grovel whenever anyone unearths something controversial that any of their acquantainces said without their knowledge somewhere in the past, while Repubs get away with murder. Just hypothetically, what would happen if a Dem candidate said he was proud and honored to receive the support of someone who explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews? His candidacy would be dead on the spot.

Posted by Hans B | March 17, 2008 12:50 PM

Spengler has an interesting article today in The Asian Times, The peculiar theology of black liberation , cogently arguing that:

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM

Ezra Klein: most overrated liberal blogger.

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 12:53 PM

If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today.

Uh, what? You're really going to just assert that and make no effort to justify it? Sorry, but this is unadulterated bullshit. It's just ideological blindness. Unapologetic, enthusiastic support of absolutely batshit Christian demogoguery has been the lifeblood of your party for about, oh, two decades now. Don't play coy and pretend that the Republican party has in any way extricated itself from vengeful, extremist, apocalyptic Christianity, because it most certainly has not.

Also, I'm increasingly tired of your "hey I said-- whoop no I didn't!" attitude towards race-baiting. Do you really want to put the phrases "blacks have suffered a long history of oppression" and "still face deep institutional discrimination" in scare quotes? You constantly tiptoe up to the line of saying controversial things about race in America, but you never actual do it. Winess your obsession with the size of a "welfare queen"'s TV or your support for the patently dishonest Reagan welfare-queen story. You're a bright guy but on this issue you are an utter coward. Say what you mean.

Posted by Freddie | March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

You've got to be kidding me. Falwell has been important in Republican circles for decades. The number of connections between Republicans and creepy people and institutions--Bob Jones University, anyone? What about the Council of Conservative Citizens? How deep must we think that Larison's weird commitments are, if he's basically a Southern Agrarian? And should we be inferring something about your views from your friendship with Larison?--are legion. Republicans don't repudiate those people or institutions because they can't win without them. For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

And religion? What does your Catholicism say about your comfort with pedophiles, or at least where you rank it as a sin in comparison with Church embarrassment? Are you a faithless Catholic for supporting an unjust war, or did you really not support it and didn't want to say?

Jeebus. But, hell, if Republicans want to play the dozens about fringe-y statements, particularly by religious leaders, keep on keeping on. That's a game some Democrats have been wanting to play for years.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

Uh, but it is Obama who is setting himself up as 'above and beyond' politics as usual. This makes him seem, like, well, any other politician, R or D. So those of you who say the Republicans do the same thing are just underscoring the point. He's the same as other politicians - he looks out for his own interests. It's same old same old.

Posted by MD | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

Yeah - Ross seems to think the Jerry Falwell is some sort of marginal figure in American politics. That comes as a big surprise to me.

Rather than debating Falwell's specific role, though, I think it's worth pointing out that for every Wright there are a thousand Falwells, and while it may give Ross some comfort to think of McCain as merely a pragmatic convert to this flock it fills me with the opposite emotion.

I would like to hear Ross say exactly what his problem with Wright is! Is it the role of race in Wright's theology? If so, does he have a similar problem with, say, Joe Lieberman's theological outlook? I think Ezra's concerns have a lot of merit here.

Posted by berger | March 17, 2008 1:13 PM

Ah, the nation's vaunted top-flight graduate schools: apparently full of students who can't distinguish between scare quotes and direct quotes. Perhaps if Freddie, using those finely honed reading skills that got him into graduate school in the first place, had read the Ezra Klein block quote, he would have realized that Ross was specifically quoting Klein, identifying what appears to be a central point in Klein's argument.

And, Freddie, I think that if you kept reading, you'll find that Ross backed up his assertion with a fairly persuasive argument, using Huckabee's failed campaign as evidence, though of course it's only fairly persuasive because we're talking about a freaking counterfactual - i.e., we've never seen a member of Falwell's church run for president. And, again, one would think that your reasoning skills would be sufficient to distinguish the question of whether Republican's have won votes by courting the religious right from the question of whether a bona fide member in good standing of the religious right could win the Republican nomination for the presidency.

And isn't the conflation of the two rather inexplicable given that your ideological confreres consistently argue that the Republican establishment is interested in the religious right only for their votes and not their values and that it would never allow a religious nut-job like Huckabee to become the nominee? Y'all can't have it both ways...

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:18 PM

As a Christian who has attended a wide variety of churches over the years, I can say with confidence that Klein's rant is describing about 20 Christians in the country. Huckabee was running as the mainline southern evangelical in the Republican primary... and he got clobbered.

There is a wonderful sniff test to see if someone is drawing evidence from their own personal dreamland or from some tangible reality. When you say the word "evangelical Christian" to Ezra Klein, does the image that pops up into his head more accurately reflect a movie character (perhaps from "There Will Be Blood") or a Christian that he knows personally?

Posted by Matthias | March 17, 2008 1:19 PM

****Jeebus. But, hell, if Republicans want to play the dozens about fringe-y statements, particularly by religious leaders, keep on keeping on. That's a game some Democrats have been wanting to play for years.****

How's that workin' out for ya, Tim? Tough talk is easy to type, ain't it?

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 1:21 PM

Ross,
Really, It's OK to pander to right wing preachers, ask for their money and support all the while not believing a damn thing they say. Right wing preachers declare 911 and Katrina acts of retribution against gays and sinners and they are invited to the Whitehouse, they are invited on political talk shows, they are members in good standing in the Republican party. You don't see a double standard?

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Whatever one thinks of the content of Wright's sermons, part of the problem for Obama is that he has claimed to be "beyond race" and has argued for a new politics that goes beyond the politics of personal destruction and all of that.

To find that he then is so closely associated with a man whose sermons do indeed involve precisely the sort of race-based anger and personal attacks (check out his pet names for Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice) that he claims to reject understandably raises the eyebrows of those who saw him as an agent of change.

Obama has said all the right things, but when his closest spiritual advisor (and someone whose church he supported to the tune of over $20K) seems stuck in exactly the angry, personal attack mode that Obama has promised to overcome, one wonders about the sincerity of his rhetoric.

Posted by Steve Horwitz | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

****Y'all can't have it both ways***

Sure they can.
Remember back in December, 1998, when bombing Iraq because of WMDs was cool? Or the '04 election, when being a war hero was the primary reason to vote against someone who never served?

It's easy when history truly began yesterday.

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Bush and Billy Graham:

And his influence is especially felt in the current administration. When asked where he would be without Graham, George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president."

Troubling statements of (and muted apology by) Billy Graham:

In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media." The allegations were so at odds with Graham's public image that most did not believe his account, and Jewish groups paid little attention. Graham released a statement denying that he talked "publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms." He said, "Those are not my words."[13]

In 2002, however, newly declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" confirmed remarks made by Graham to President Nixon three decades earlier. Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon.[23] "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,"[24] said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, including A.M. Rosenthal, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he tells Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."[23] These remarks were highly controversial to some Jewish leaders that characterized them as antisemitic, such as Abraham Foxman.[13]

When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that "although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,"[25] and "If it wasn't on tape, I would not have believed it. I guess I was trying to please... I went to a meeting with Jewish leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness."[26] According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for the conversion of the Jews."[26]

So we're all agreed that George Bush may well be an anti-semite, and that it's because of that anti-semitism that he wasn't elected. Thank gawd for the enormous media effort that went into looking into this matter.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:30 PM

If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might – might – have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did.

Like Freddie above, I'm having a hard time believing that you really think this is true. You use Huckabee as an example, and choose to ignore our current born-again, fundamentalist president? Look, I don't agree with everything Ezra wrote, but your argument is BS.

Posted by Gabriel | March 17, 2008 1:31 PM

A couple of points:

1. I'm a Bob Jones alum (almost twenty years ago now) who has since left all that completely behind. I had little idea what I was getting into when I went (I spent most of my childhood overseas) and am not clear now why I stayed for all four years. I had grown up in a racially diverse church and community and found the institution's position on race inexplicable.

2. That said, during my time there, I don't recall hearing any sermon on race per se. I certainly heard nothing as poisonous as these clips from Wright.

3. My long-ago connection with Bob Jones has resulted in my having to deal with questions about religion in nearly every job interview I've had since, notwithstanding my extensive time spent overseas, my marriage to a spouse of another race, and my graduation at near the top of the class of one of the top graduate programs in my profession in the country. I have had recruiting personnel from some employers - espeically those particularly "committed" to "diversity" - all but mock me in interviews. I know that if I ever ran for office in my part of the country, my four-year association with Bob Jones would terminate my candidacy before it even got started.

4. Those of you - Freddie, I'm talking to you - who likely feel no sympathy for me, please explain how my distant association with Bob Jones should tarnish me any more than Obama's ongoing association with the racist Rev. Wright - even to the point of putting his children under the influence of Wright's hateful teachings - should tarnish him.

5. Given my own experience - and if we've learned anything from this campaign, it's that one's personal experiences trump all other considerations - forgive me if my schadenfreude at Obama's predicament is nearly uncontrollable. It's about time the media turned its attention to the extremist rhetoric that comes out of mainline, so-called "social justice" churches on a regular basis. The only reason their influence on the left margins of American politics (and the mainstream of African-American politics) has not been the subject of more outrage is because, by and large, the press either (1) is afraid to touch it or (2) largely agrees with it. It's about time that changed.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:32 PM

Talk about chickens coming home to roost ... you diversity whores and race baiting liberals will choke on Wright from now until November because you REFUSE TO ADMIT THE MAN IS A RACIST ...

Un - believable ...

You deserve to lose when your hero can't even clean up the racists in his own church ...

The Big Con game that Obama has been playing is starting to unravel ...

Your ignorance about human nature allowed Obama to lie about his past and beliefs ... you simply cannot believe a black man can be that messed up.
The signs were always there. His nasty wife, his "present" votes, his pastor.

You on the left simply bought it hook, line and sinker and now you are feeling the bite of the hook in your lip and you think you can just jump up, shake your head and shout racism and that hook will be thrown. Sorry, you swallowed it way to deep for that.

You are going to die as a polical party, flopping around, gasping for air just waiting for the end.

Posted by Jeff | March 17, 2008 1:32 PM

The least edifying part of this whole Wright business is this debate over whether Wright is more, less, or equally as offensive as Falwell etc. I'm sick of politics by who's offended. Let's stipulate that most religions have a viewpoint about who's chosen and who's not that is kind of offensive in a secular democracy, where we're not supposed to disdain our neighbors for tribal reasons. Nevertheless everybody has to belong to a church to get elected. So every candidate's in the same catch-22.

The question is, is your religion something that makes it likely you can be fair-minded, pluralistic, decent etc., or does it make other groups feel like you're going to be out to get them? It's entirely rational for white lunchbucket guys to feel that a black politician who's led a fairly charmed life sliding right up the ladder of success-- Ivy League to law firm to power-- yet apparently goes to a church where they peddle and nurse no end of resentment and grievance toward whitey is not going to have his interests in mind-- and fails a rather crucial test of self-awareness to boot.

And it is entirely reasonable for any of us who feel national security is a key issue in this election to question whether someone who may well subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was justified payback for Hiroshima (funny that Osama Bin Laden himself never mentions that in his laundry list of gripes, by the way) is not someone you feel is right enough and clear-headed enough to defend this country and advance its interests. They can have those views, but that doesn't entitle them to our votes.

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:35 PM

please explain how my distant association with Bob Jones should tarnish me any more than Obama's ongoing association with the racist Rev. Wright

At a bare minimum, we're talking about an institution tasked with educating you, through both formal and informal means, at what is supposed to be an impressionable age. That seems pretty easy to distinguish.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:37 PM

If we were to elect Obama as Prez, one of the benefits would be to have an important counter-points to some types of extremism.

African Americans cant, wont, must...

Or maybe they could be President of the U.S.

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Unapologetic, enthusiastic support of absolutely batshit Christian demogoguery has been the lifeblood of your party for about, oh, two decades now.

Yeah, like remember when Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays and the abortionists, and Bush was like "Totally! Right on!"?

Oh wait, no. It wasn't quite like that.

For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

"In part" is doing an awful lot of work here. I'm pretty sure McCain was never going to receive evangelical primary votes and that his need for a comeback was driven much more by immigration.

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 1:39 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S., and even at white people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse. Admirable? No. But arguments of the form "If you switched the words 'black' and 'white'..." ignore the entire history of our country. And I really don't think people who make such arguments are making them in good faith; I don't think anyone is really so naive.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 1:39 PM

Since Nixon came up, I'm reminded of something Stephen Ambrose said, where he marveled that someone who had been awarded nearly every office in the land by the people* should be so consumed by resentment over how he wasn't loved enough like those goddam golden Kennedys.

Don't elect presidents who nurse resentments when in fact they've been extraordinarily blessed. It just never works out.

* Nixon, in fact, had more votes cast for him in elections than anyone else in American history. Interesting to think of it that way.

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:41 PM

Falwell is and has been a marginal figure in Republican circles for years. The only people who still think he and Pat Robertson have political clout with GOP voters are liberal Democrats.

As for Ross making an "unsubstantiated assertion" about what would happen if McCain were a Falwell-evangelical - he uses the *actual* example of how poorly Mike Huckabee (a much more mainstream evangelical) did in the Republican primaries to suggest (at least to those paying attention and not just looking to score cheap points) that a more extreme evangelical would have done worse.

> (It's also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell's 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin's "my God is bigger than your God" remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies, albeit of the mealy-mouthed, "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety...)

Posted by JD | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

I'm pretty sure McCain was never going to receive evangelical primary votes

Think that might be because of his shots at "agents of intolerance"? Maybe? Possibly?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

SomeCallMe,

When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that "although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,"

"According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for the conversion of the Jews."

Where are the parallels with Wright? A. Are we talking about things he said 30 years ago, or within the last 5 years? B. Has he apologized for anything he's said? C. Are there contravening statnements and/or actions that indicate that his statements about whites and/or America are anomalies, as opposed to firmly held beliefs?

Posted by Mike S. | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme. There is nothing in Obama's writings speeches or voting record that show him to be of like mind with Wright.
Why do people insist on portraying his relationship in such a simplistic fashion. Don't answer that, I know why.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 1:45 PM

"Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme. "

Could be true, what's the proof? All this has revealed is how little we know of the true Obama. Post-racial uniter or conspiracist nutbar? Who can tell from the speeches he makes?

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:48 PM

At a bare minimum, we're talking about an institution tasked with educating you, through both formal and informal means, at what is supposed to be an impressionable age. That seems pretty easy to distinguish.

Just as I thought: My one-time association with the institution is enough to brand me for life with the racist bilge the institution is known for. No doubt a similar youthful lapse in judgment by somebody on the left - Bill Ayers, anyone? - would be met with bromides about the indiscretions of youth. Good God.

Isn't it easy to distinguish on grounds more favorable to me? I attended Bob Jones when I was young, impressionable, and faced with a number of unappealing options (coming from a fundamentalist family, suspicious of higher education; indeed, the first in my family to go to college); I have since distanced myself from the school, and everything in my current life - from the career I've chosen to the way I rear my kids - shows a commitment to honest, fair inquiry and a rejection of any philosophy that would judge people based on their racial or ethnic identity.

Obama, on the other hand, consciously chose a racist minister for his mentor, submitted to the leadership of that mentor in the early years of his faith formation, and has maintained his association with that minister - to the extent of, as I said above, willfully placing his children under that minister's hateful teaching - for two decades.

And you seriously maintain that I'm the worthier of condemnation and ostracism?

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Think that might be because of his shots at "agents of intolerance"? Maybe? Possibly?

Of course it is. Also because he's not evangelical. But it has nothing to do with why he faded from Republican front-runner status in 2007 and needed to "stage a comeback".

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Ross--You know who was a really nutty "spiritual advisor"? There was a guy back in the 1860s who actually stood up and told Americans that God had given them the Civil War as punishment for their sins--and he got away with it! He did it from the East Portico of the Capitol!! Lord knows what any of you--you, Matt, Ezra, bloggers left and right--would have done with that Abraham Lincoln character. May I suggest, though, that societies that think prophets are nutty by definition--and that seems to be the case with the whole lot of you--are in big trouble? Wright is a hot preacher; to anyone who's ever been to a black church, this is no surprise in the least, though it seems to be shocking, shocking!! to you guys [One might suggest that there are severe limits to your vaunted cosmopolitanism]. Prophets are also shaggy fellows who say disquieting things. But, as Ralph Luker pointed out this morning at Cliopatria, Martin Luther King, Jr. said similar "nutty" things, and was hated for similar reasons. These guys scare you--and they scare you [and again I don't mean the Right, but the Left as well] because, in the end, your ultimate value is your own comfort.

Posted by David in Nashville | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

bjd - yes, you have a point. Still.

It's not so much that he really believed Wright, it's just that he found him politically expedient to associate with at one point, and now he's trouble, so Obama's gonna dump him. Now, that's a profile in courage, right there.

Posted by MD | March 17, 2008 1:52 PM

"Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme."

I find this argument - peddled by Sullivan and certain close friends of mine - to be among the most remarkable to come out out of this whole brouhaha. Certainly Obama's rhetoric differs vastly from that offered up by Wright . . . but, folks, it's rhetoric, nothing more. And all the rhetoric shows is that Obama was smart enough to know that he wouldn't win his Senate race, much less the Democratic nomination, if he campaigned with the rhetoric of a Wright (or even a Jesse Jackson). In other words, while he may indeed be altogether different from Wright, his rhetoric doesn't prove that; it proves only that he's a savvier campaigner than Jackson was. That's something, but it certainly isn't a sign of the second coming...

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:56 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S.

Any halfway honest person would also understand that these statements go beyond some vague disassociated anger at the U.S. or "white people". How angry do you have to be to believe that AIDS is a government created disease designed to eradicate the African American population? Or is it better described as prejudice and irrationality?

Posted by Brad | March 17, 2008 1:57 PM

This is one instance where Obama really can blame the press. Not for all these burdensome questions but for their lateness. Once Barry came up to the Edwards level of support he should have been vetted like anyone else; like Romney and the Huck or at least on par with Hillary. Din't happen. No no. Obama has all the downsides of Jackson with less candor and more vitriol but the Dem flunky's in the press didn't point any of that out because they Hope For Change. Hilarious! But Obama will have served one invaluable purpose; I thought I would be lucky to live to see the shiny rubbed off of the Clintons. Well done, Barry. Well done.

Posted by megapotumus | March 17, 2008 1:58 PM

How angry do you have to be to believe that AIDS is a government created disease designed to eradicate the African American population? Or is it better described as prejudice and irrationality?

Well, it is prejudice and irrationality. But have you ever stopped to ask why some black people might find such conspiracy theories believable? You might start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 2:01 PM

In other words, while he may indeed be altogether different from Wright, his rhetoric doesn't prove that; it proves only that he's a savvier campaigner than Jackson was
And you have nothing to base this on at all and that's called prejudice.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:03 PM

But have you ever stopped to ask why some black people might find such conspiracy theories believable?

Because some idiots & guilty white liberals prop them up in order for votes, that's why. That's why you have enablers trying to argue the indefensible right now, because voting for the Dem is all that matters.

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 2:05 PM

Once Barry came up to the Edwards level of support he should have been vetted like anyone else; like Romney

Back in the U.S. at Brigham Young, when boycotts and violent protests over the university's virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games, he stayed on the sidelines.

At the time, the Mormon Church excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as the result of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah's son Ham.

A handful of students and prominent Mormons called for an end to the doctrine, but Romney wasn't one of them. When he heard over a car radio in 1978 that the church would offer blacks full membership, he said, he pulled over and cried.

But until then, he deferred to church leaders, he said. "The way things are achieved in my church, as I believe in other great faiths, is through inspiration from God and not through protests and letters to the editor."

Oh, yeah, "vetted."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 2:09 PM

And you have nothing to base this on at all and that's called prejudice.

Since when does a citizen of this republic bear the burden of proof when it comes to judging whether a candidate for public office has the substance to back up his or her rhetoric. Demanding that a candidate show that is not prejudice, bjd, it's prudence.

All I said was that Obama's rhetoric proves nothing about his substantive beliefs. Are you saying that I'm prejudiced for not taking him at his word? Because that's all there is - his word, his claim that he is a unifying force, a bringer of change that transcends race and party. Words and claims contradicted not only by his association for over twenty years with a racist, hate-filled minister who sees American as irretrievably divided and corrupt, but also by his utter failure ever to take a stand that caused him to break ranks with his party in a way that actually cost him something, unlike his Republican rival.

Let me put it another way: What you're advocating is a kind of faith-based politics, but it's a faith of the most irrational kind - faith that you can take a politician at his or her word. Forgive me if I find that type of faith to rival the Jim Jones cult for sheer lunacy.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 2:12 PM

It looks as though Obama may have the "Wright Stuff."

Posted by too bad | March 17, 2008 2:13 PM

Some here have argued that, in at least some of his remarks, Wright is either correct, incorrect with an understandable reason for being in error, or partially correct despite rhetorical excesses.

Obama has declared that he "vehemently condemns" all of Wright's "controversial" statements. Do you think that Obama is wrong to distance himself from remarks that you believe to be correct?

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong. And you don't call him on it because you want him to win. If you had any courage, you'd criticize Obama the same way you criticize non-Obama supporters for condemning Wright's statements.

In case you're keeping score at home, this is known as "hope."

Posted by AK | March 17, 2008 2:16 PM

I guess one can look at the Wright issue and see something legitimate there...

I also suppose that one could see the Wright issue as the latest in a litany of petty slams against Obama. "He's a muslim." "He's not a patriot because he doesn't wear a pin." "He has a funny name."

And now, "He has a crazy preacher."

Tell me...who doesn't???? We're not talking about a craziness unique to Wright. We're talking about a craziness unique to preachers .

And as such, there is an acceptable level of craziness from right-wingers that is not extended to left-wingers.

Freedom of religion, right? As long as it's the right religion.....

Posted by Herb | March 17, 2008 2:18 PM

I think Rev. Wright will apologize. As I wrote on my blog, Obama's poll numbers will plummet, and Oprah has a problem with the Rev. Wright also. Look for an Oprah show on the Reverend soon, where he is presented in a very sympathetic light. His Marine Corp service etc.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | March 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Herb,

You're missing the point. It's that the craziness that Obama saw fit to associate with for over two decades is not simply crazy - it's that it directly contradicts the fundamental premise of his campaign, the aura that sets him apart from Clinton, that of change and unity.

Try a little thought experiment. Let's say that I not only graduated from Bob Jones about 20 years ago, but that I returned to teach there, I attended its weekly services, and I had my kids enrolled in the Bob Jones Elementary school. And I chose to run for public office on a theme of unity across racial lines, of extending full equality to gays in marriage and other laws, of tolerance toward people of all faiths, including Catholics and Mormons. You, Freddie, and the rest of the left-of-center posters here would unreservedly call me a sham, a hypocrite, and a liar. And you would be justified in doing so.

Why is Obama entitled to different treatment?

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong.
Another statement based on the air in someone's head and not on fact. Once again this is called prejudice. Did you learn to think this way in church?

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

Herb, please tell us about Hillary's and McCain's crazy preachers. After all, everyone has them.

Posted by ed | March 17, 2008 2:25 PM

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong. And you don't call him on it because you want him to win. If you had any courage, you'd criticize Obama the same way you criticize non-Obama supporters for condemning Wright's statements.

He certainly believes that some of them are wrong. For example, I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that the CIA created AIDS. I also believe him when he says he never heard Wright say that, or yell "God damn America," because he wants to be president and he's not an idiot. If he'd heard Wright say those words, he would have downplayed their relationship from the beginning.

Now he's overreaching, though, by saying that he never had any clue that Wright harbored some bitterness toward white America. In fact, he had admitted before that Wright was basically like a racist uncle. So I think he's bungled this. He should have come right out and said that Wright had played an important role in a formative part of his life, and that he overlooked Wright's faults out of personal loyalty. I think many Americans could have accepted that.

But, AK, as to your larger point, I agree that Obama is, in certain ways, a phony. His public message is that we have nearly put racism behind us. I don't think he really believes that, but it's the only way he can get elected. And yes, I want him to get elected, so I was hoping most people would buy his message. Guilty as charged, I guess.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 2:30 PM

Republicans don't repudiate those people or institutions because they can't win without them. For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

Actually, if you really want to know, Republicans like me don't repudiate these people or institutions because we genuinely believe, in our heart of hearts, that America is a free nation, that speech should be free, and that nobody ought to be publicly repudiated for the alleged sin of holding an unpopular opinion. Also, everybody can vote for whomever they like -- and that's not the candidate's fault.

Notice that we're not demanding that Reverend Wright be silenced, nor that he apologize. Quite the contrary -- we're thrilled to have a source from which we can finally obtain a glimpse into what Teflon Man Obama actually believes.

What we deplore is this oppressive notion that Democrats hold, that suggests that if what a minister preaches violates the sensibilities of some group of Democrats, then the public ought to rise up like a mob with its torches and pitchforks and silence the offending speaker. That's Orwellian Mob Rule, not proper behavior in a democratic society.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Posted by Plumb Bob | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Richard,
If you ran for public office and had a public record of speaking against the policies of Bob Jones U, had a voting record that showed you did not vote in accordance with the teachings at Bob Jones U, then I would assume that are working to change Bob Jones U to a different place.
Your words and deeds would matter.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Shorter Ross:

Our nuts are not as bad as your nuts.

The only problem is, it's not true. The right's nuts are much worse.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Tim, uh, what? Are you saying that Barry received this same treatment from CBS or the press at large? Or that these investigations into Mormonism generally and Romney's faith specifically don't constitute "vetting" as Obama is now receiving? Or are you saying that the nastier tenets of Mormonism are the equivalent of Wright's blandishments? Romney got grilled on his religion. You demonstrate that. Why shouldn't Barry endure the same? There is a simple and honest response: Barry joined the church to ingratiate himself with the local electorate and never took that stuff seriously unlike the devout Romney. This is his only out and we know why he can't take it. It would invalidate his claim to authentic blackness, such as it is. Romney stood up to all questioning on his religion like a man. I know we don't expect that sort of thing from Democrats but we thought B. Hussein Obama was different. Sorry.

Posted by megapotamus | March 17, 2008 2:39 PM

So if I understand many of you right the "failure" of Huckabee's candidacy proves that the Xtian right has no political power...?

Posted by berger | March 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Richard, I don't think I'm missing the point...I thought I conceded that this might in fact be a legitimate issue.

I tried your thought experiment, however, but was unable to reach a satisfactory result.

1) Are you genuinely embracing the "unity" platform while secretly holding to the standard Bob Jones line?

2) Or did you suddenly have a Eureka moment and realize that your 20 years of Bob Jones teaching was invalid and now you're a "unity" guy?

Either way...I don't see how the thought experiment is germane to the Obama situation.

Ed, This is what I know...John McCain is a baptist. Hillary is a Methodist. They both believe a guy lived a couple thousand years ago, wandered the countryside performing magic, was executed by the authorities, and then came back from the dead to save humanity from a vengeful God.

I know, I know... That story seems all too plausible to millions of folks.

But that doesn't make it any less crazy...

Posted by Herb | March 17, 2008 2:43 PM

Since when does a citizen of this republic bear the burden of proof when it comes to judging whether a candidate for public office has the substance to back up his or her rhetoric.
You can think what you want, but there is a voting record that shows what you think is false. There is a record of writing and speeches that shows what you think is false.
You may think Obama is the black Manchurian Candidate, but that pretty much pegs you as a man of prejudice.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Falwell is and has been a marginal figure in Republican circles for years.

It would be pretty remarkable if he were still influential.

Now, tell us about how marginal James Dobson is.

Posted by Mike | March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

I agree that he ought to be of interest given his close relationship with Obama; but I think we should be careful about equating Wright's words with Obama's beliefs.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor's foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon.

As opposed to securing the endorsement of one and then appearing in public with him?

I think you're a pretty smart guy, Ross, so I’m assuming this is a parody of right-wing cluelessness rather than the real thing.

Posted by Mike | March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

Romney got grilled on his religion. You demonstrate that. Why shouldn't Barry endure the same?

He is getting grilled on the same. And we're arguing that he ought to get to use the same response as Romney: "Those beliefs aren't my beliefs, even if I didn't leave the Church over them."

Ross appears to be arguing for a different standard for reasons I cannot fathom. (Though I guess we could go through his associates and see if they have any beliefs that give rise to malicious explanations. That'd be hard.) We'll see if the media holds Obama to the Romney standard.

I'm not all that worried about the broader American reaction. Lots of Americans go to church, and lots of us discount whatever comes from the pulpit that strikes as crazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 2:54 PM

we're thrilled to have a source from which we can finally obtain a glimpse into what Teflon Man Obama actually believes.

So you didn't know that Obama wrote two books, has given innumerable speeches, and provides lots of information about "what he believes" on his campaign website? You're seriously that starved for information about him, and yet you haven't done the slightest bit of research?

Apparently none of that stuff matters - what matters is what his pastor has said, since Obama necessarily agrees with everything that comes out of Wright's mouth.

Give me a break.

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Personally, I shall never forgive the late Jerry Falwell for diverting the course of Hurricane Gloria in 1985 away from Virginia Beach so that it left my cousins on eastern Long Island without electricity for ten days in the middle of a Mets pennant run--futile, as it turned out to be and postponed for a year.

Posted by Arthur Glass | March 17, 2008 3:00 PM

This is going to be a long campaign season indeed, if every doubt about Obama is interpreted as arising from a belief that Obama is a "Black Manchurian candidate." I have never uttered any sentiment so despicable and would "reject and denounce" any ideological compatriot who did so. And I reject and denounce you, bjd, for introducing such racist sentiments into a discussion about Obama and imputing them to me. I happen to be favorably disposed to Obama as a person - if not as a candidate - and I resent your implication that my honest disagreements with him on matters of theology and policy are somehow based on his race.

But point me, please, to the voting record that shows my concerns to be unfounded. When I look, I see a lockstep approach to voting that has justifiably earned him one of the most liberal records in the Senate, that has illustrated time and time again an unwillingness to broker - or even participate in - bipartisan compromise under any circumstances, much less circumstances that might earn him criticism from his own party. Please show me that I'm wrong. Please.

And explain to me why I should give his speeches or his two books (which, as far as I know, are the only examples of his "writing") more credence than I give his twenty-year association with the racist Rev. Wright. And explain to me why my refusal automatically brands me as prejudiced.

And, finally, explain to me how a candidate whose supporters respond to every bit of skepticism with charges of racism, to every good-faith disagreement with charges of prejudice, to every doubt with a call to trust Obama, is going to be able to bring any unity to the country at all.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Actually, Ross, I think the distinction is whether or not we would BELIEVE a white candidate who disavows himself or herself from the nutty views of someone close to them, versus a black candidate who disavows himself from the nutty views of someone to close to him.

In other words, if Barack Obama were white and his pastor were white, would we believe Obama when he says he doesn't believe the crazy things that pastor says?

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 3:07 PM

In other words, if Barack Obama were white and his pastor were white, would we believe Obama when he says he doesn't believe the crazy things that pastor says?

Thus my hypothetical above about my candidacy as a Bob Jones professor. Which, to judge from Herb's response, caused a few heads to explode. Which, in turn, strikes me as pretty solid evidence that a white candidate would be - with total justification - hounded from the race unceremoniously.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:12 PM

And explain to me why I should give his speeches or his two books (which, as far as I know, are the only examples of his "writing") more credence than I give his twenty-year association with the racist Rev. Wright.

Because Obama actually wrote his own books and gave his own speeches, and because he and Wright are different people?

Are you seriously arguing that Obama and Wright share the same mind, worldview, perspective on everything? What could possibly give you such an obviously dopey idea? Obama has said the opposite, and you choose to disbelieve him for what reason?

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

This is going to be a long campaign season indeed, if every doubt about Obama is interpreted as arising from a belief that Obama is a "Black Manchurian candidate."

Besides, if we're going to worry about a Manchurian candidate, then McCain is obviously the bigger danger. Who knows what kind of crazy Communist brainwashing he was subjected to as a POW? What if he's president, and some Vietnamese mad scientist whispers a phrase that brings McCain under his total zombie-like control? What then?

Why would anyone want to risk our security like this?

Posted by Jim W | March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

Are you seriously arguing that Obama and Wright share the same mind, worldview, perspective on everything? What could possibly give you such an obviously dopey idea? Obama has said the opposite, and you choose to disbelieve him for what reason?

I could be snarky and say that it's presumably for the same reason that folks on the left have consistently been ready to assume that I share the same worldview and prospective on everything with my alma mater, but I wouldn't want to be tagged with the same dopey beliefs that most "tolerant" left-of-center folks use for forming judgments about me.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:22 PM

I think you're making the same mistake the EZRA and some others are making. While it’s easy to point out Huckabee as an example, it’s not exactly the same. Is Huck’s lack of ability to pull non-evangelical’s a result of being an evangelical or because he’s Huckabee? Are people afraid of his church or his fair-tax? Are they voting McCain because they trust the ‘Maverick’ and not the governor who doesn’t believe in evolution? Huck is also a minister.

You can't tell me that if Obama was a Republican that FOX and the others would have quite the same slant as they do today.

It’s a legitimate concern that this man is Obama’s pastor, but is it legitimate to cherry pick a few minutes from a few sermon’s and smear the pastor to smear Obama?

I think the media is doing the country another disservice by not actually investigating what this man stands for, the good and the bad, and only playing back a few minutes of his sermons. At times in some obviously partisian and exaggerated manners. I think the media (left and right), and you as well, are doing the country a disservice with dismissing out of hand churches that aren’t 100% mainstream and patriotic and politically correct. The glory of the first amendment is the right to voice dissent towards your political opponents, and most importantly, your country. The minister may be a racist (although, to truly be a racist you have to have power), and his statements definitely were prejudiced; but does that fact that Wright isn’t perfect mean that Obama is an undercover black agent of intolerance?

Is the totality of a church a few sermons by an old black minister?
Because that old black minister still feels some of the hurt from discrimination and racism, and speaks out about it, he’s to be demonized?

There are legitimate questions and concerns, but the media in general, fails to actual present facts in a fair impartial way. But I have no confidence that the media actual cares to present a complete picture of the situation and allow people to actual decide.

You’re right, if all the facts were the same and Barack were white, or he was republican, he would still be having some problems with his pastor. But they wouldn’t be the same problems, and I truly doubt they’d be this severe.

For a little context - I’m black, male, un-practicing catholic, under 40, and registered republican.

Posted by Ken | March 17, 2008 3:25 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S., and even at white people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse.

I just wanted to quote that fine sentence again, as so much of the recent rhetoric against Obama's candidacy wants to conflate ahistoricity with honesty or fairness -- i.e., Geraldine Ferrero's crass comments, which many have defended as simple honesty.

We are historical creatures. We live in a context of all that has happened before. It is not simple honesty or fair-mindedness to pretend as if the past never happened; it's deceit; it's disingenuousness.

Blacks in this country have walked a difficult, twisted path, largely imposed on them from the start by white people. A lot of smart black people, especially older ones who experienced first-hand being treated as second-class citizens, are still pissed about it, and who could blame them?

Sorry to break it to the mainstream of this country, but anger is still an integral part of the black experience in America. Obama wouldn't really be a uniter if he didn't have some people around him who reflected that anger (even irrationally at times.)

It is the promise of Obama that he may help redeem the bitterness of the past by including it within a larger, more hopeful truth about this country. Obama never claimed he'd be a sanitizer or eraser; that's just what some white people have hoped.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 17, 2008 3:33 PM

Those of you who think the Wright brouhaha is no problem for BHO:

How do you think it is going over with Hispanic and European American Catholic blue collar workers, male and female? I.e., the Irish, Polish, Italian, Czech, Hungarian, Mexican workers who populate the northeast and midwest major metropolitan areas.

Do you really think you could convince that segment of the population that Rev. Wright's relationship with BHO is irrelevant?

If so, how?

Posted by vnjagvet | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

True. You should be comparing him to HATE MONGERER FRED PHELPS, WHO ALSO SAID AMERICA DESERVED 9/11.

Also, fred phelps viciously attacked gays the same way that Wright attacked Whites Jews and Hispanics.

Posted by Obama's Pastor: "America deserved 9/11" | March 17, 2008 3:40 PM

Barack is in trouble. His supporters can spin it anyway they want. Let them. He may still win the nomination, but he win NOT win the GE.