Obama's Speech (III)

I'd like to associate myself with Jay Cost's characteristically thoughtful take on the speech - both his praise for it, and his reservations. Here's the key passage:

My concern with the speech is the following. I am not sure what I think about Obama's claim that he never heard Wright make incendiary comments. I think that hinges on the definition of "incendiary." More importantly, I have always thought this was a moot point. Incendiary comments make for great television - but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that undergirds them. Obama clearly understands Wright's philosophy - even if he never heard Wright say what has generated this firestorm. If nothing else, yesterday he contextualized Wright into the broader narrative of the American racial division. He would not have been able to do that so ably if he had only learned about this philosophy last week.

This philosophy is divisive, and Obama was aware of it even if he had not heard its most extreme articulations. At the same time, this philosophy is clearly not the core mission of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright does not wake up every morning dedicated to dividing people. However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. He wakes up every morning dedicated to uniting people. This is why Obama thinks Wright is not just wrong, but "profoundly" wrong. Wright's divisiveness constitutes a grievous mistake on what Obama takes to be the central question of American identity - are we one people or are we not?

Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. He has been a parishioner for twenty years, and he has been a strong believer in this philosophy of unity for at least four years, since his keynote address in 2004. I appreciate that he cannot walk away from Trinity because the church speaks to who he is. However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?

... The essential problem of the speech is that it gives no answer to these queries.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

I think the important element of your, Larison's and Cost's approach to the speech is the good faith way you analyze it. all of you recognize Obama for what he is and what he is attempting to say and making honest critiques based on his words. You are moving the conversation forward in a respectful and intellectuall manner, even if you disagree or have reservations.

It is such a refreshing departure to the talking heads who simply yell about how the great the speech was and then question whether it will play in Youngstown, with no analyis of why or an attempt to engage the words themselves.

Posted by Civilized Crank | March 20, 2008 10:15 AM

Here is what I would argue.

As a gay man, I was bothered by the McClurkin brouhahe last year. But then the Obama campaign said something that made sense to me. You can't change people's minds if you stop talking to those you disagree with.
Rejecting somebody because you disagree with some of what he says, especially when it is someone you love, may not be an option.
Obama may be good at compartementalizing those things.

And I concur with what CC said above. Why couldnt the NYT pick YOU as a token conservative columnist rather than Kristol ?

Posted by Benjamin | March 20, 2008 10:27 AM

with all due respect, that is a ridiculous question for the simple reason that the church is not a court of law. it is a not a place primarily where facts are to be argued. i think the discomfort many have with obama staying in the church has more to do with an inability to understand the role of the black church in particular and churces in general in community life.

faith is a process. the same questions some of ask of obama are the same one blacks could ask of a legion of white churches throughout the history of this country.

suppose obama spoke to the reverend on several occasions and did everything you'd want him to do and the reverend still got up there and said what he said, then what?

the better question is, what level disassociation by obama of wright would truly make you comfortable? furthermore, what level of identification of the intricacies of the black experience by a black candidate is beyond the point that makes him a viable national candidate?

Posted by marcus | March 20, 2008 10:36 AM

When did religion become another word for philosophy?

It's weird to read people who are supposedly sympathetic to religion analyze religion _strictly_ as if it were a philosophy - as if Obama were had evaluated the various positions held by Wright and after some amount of consideration was swayed by Wright's argument. I'd expect this approach to religion from someone like Christopher Hitchens, who thinks of religion as simply a bunch of propositions about the real nature of the world (and actions that spring from those propositions).

People go to churches for all sorts of reasons: from family to community to tradition to liturgy etc.

It's quite right and proper to ask Obama how he feels about what Wright said, as well as what he did about it - I completely agree - but let's refrain from all these cheap and superficial attempts at considering his religious life.

Posted by berger | March 20, 2008 10:44 AM

Thanks again Ross for bringing reason to people's reaction to Obama's speech.

I have a favorable impression of Mr. Obama, I may vote for him in the general.

Still, it scares me that he can get smart people like Andrew to sound pretty stupid at times.

Obama matters, but he has flaws. Lets discuss.

Posted by Kim | March 20, 2008 10:53 AM

must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance.

This reads to me like the last throes of finding an intellectual justification for harping on this.

I just can't see why someone would choose to evaluate a candidate for president not on his policy proposals, not on his record, not on his speeches, but on whether or not he took on his pastor.

This "adding epicycles" to the argument of why we should care about what Wright said really could only come from someone who's never going to vote for Obama anyway. I feel the same way about people who talk about Sen. McCain's "pill-popping wife" or his infidelity to wife #1. The guys have records, let's evaluate them on those.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 20, 2008 10:55 AM

Berger -- I think one of the reasons why Obama is being evaluated in terms of Wright's positions is not because people are confusing religion with philosophy, but because Wright's church has infused so much politics into religion.

Posted by dkm | March 20, 2008 11:01 AM

I agree with Civilized Crank. What Obama did in that speech was hopefully ignite a meaningful dialogue on two races understanding each other more fully. It was great, but not perfect. It was honest and forthright. I do have troubles wondering about Obama sitting in that congregation for many years but I also realize that I can't walk in his shoes. I would not want my life analyzed as to what I might not have done that I should have in retrospect. I doubt anyone does.

Posted by ann | March 20, 2008 11:01 AM

Have the offensive views of a white racist ever been "contextualized?"

If they have, I missed it.

This is probably the stickiest wicket in this whole mess - the idea that frlagrantly racist and hateful views are ... somehow ... not quite oookkaaay ... but not really so bad, either ... it's just that you have to understand blah blah blah.

Meanwhile, Trent Lott loses his job, because of one isolated very clumsy statement.

Jeremiah Wright is just not considered responsible for his views. They just got stuck to him like burrs after a walk in the woods, and he was powerless to pull them off and discard them, despite getting a substantial education, and assuming a position of power, influence and authority in a CHRISTIAN church.

All during a time when his despised home country was making painful and necessary advances in extending to blacks the rights they were promised by a constitution that - while imperfectly realized - enshrined the ideas he is able to appeal to in his quest for social justice (or whatever).

The whole "contextualization" thing is problematic. I remember in college in the early 80's, the Soviet Union's actions were always "contextualized," America's never.

Deja Vu.

Posted by Randall | March 20, 2008 11:08 AM

Of course for every one "reasoned" post, there will 1,000,000 batshit crazy responses from the GOP. As much as Ross try to deny it, conservatism rests on the Racist trendencies of the GOP:

Is Obama Wright" splices together the most inflammatory language of Jeremiah Wright with a series of other issues that have arisen in the campaign, all of which have been fodder for a series of emails that question Obama's loyalty to the country.

...

Rather the incendiary video -- which also includes footage of Malcolm X, the U.S. Olympians who raised their hand in the black power salute and the song "Fight the Power" -- is in part the amateur work of Lee Habeeb.

A co-founder and former producer of the Laura Ingraham Show, Habeeb is the director of strategic content at Salem Radio Network, the conservative talk radio powerhouse that airs programs hosted by figures such as Bill Bennett and Hugh Hewitt.

Ah yes, a scary black man with Muslim ties - is he loyal to the US? Nice.

Posted by Tiparillo | March 20, 2008 11:11 AM

ahh, the wonder of equivalency: Black hate = White hate.

The greatest trick that the majority in any society can pull off is to convince the populace that the grievances of the minority born out of oppression have the same weight as the oppression itself.

Posted by Marcus | March 20, 2008 11:18 AM

I'm sorry, but this argument seems way out on a limb to me. When did it become Obama's responsibility to lead the attitudes of everyone at the church he attended? He wasn't the pastor. He was a parishioner. Is it not possible to believe that Obama could have attended church every Sunday, and heard the Rev. occasionally rant in a sermon - for which Mike Huckabee, fer hevvins sake, forgives him - without demanding that Obama should have wrested control of the church from the pastor ... because... why? Because he might run for President some day?

Posted by Confused | March 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Oh, I see.

Race-hatred is something whites are supposed to get over, and blacks are to embrace.

That sounds like a winning strategy, not to mention one whitey will be eager to embrace.

It's done wonders for Obama's candidacy.

Posted by Randall | March 20, 2008 11:44 AM

"However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts?"

I would say that his recent speech could probably be counted as working to persuade both Wright, his parishoners, and anybody who agrees with them that they're wrong. I'd be very surprised if some of his other public speeches, back when he was working in Illinois, didn't contain similar themes.

Posted by Tel | March 20, 2008 11:46 AM

I went to a church once.

The pastor got jiggy with some young girls he was "counselling."

I was not in the pews when he came out with it, begged for forgiveness, and made a bunch of dumb excuses.

Yet somehow, shockingly enough, news of this event managed to reach me.

Maybe the parishioners at Trinity Black Power Marxist Indoctrination Center did a better job of concealing from Obama certain juicy details about their pastor than my fellow parishioners.

Anything's possible.

Posted by Randall | March 20, 2008 11:50 AM

"Have the offensive views of a white racist ever been "contextualized?"

If they have, I missed it."

Yes, they have, just not very publicly or obviously. Let's say some bubba in Alabama spouts off racist nonsense, and for whatever reason that makes it into the national press. There are quite a few white people who will think, "Well, yeah, he's an ignorant rube who doesn't know any better. What's more, he's one of those Southerners. Prob'ly had hate spoonfed to him from his daddy. Sad, really. It's a good thing he doesn't speak for the rest of us." But almost nobody really takes the time to deliberately, specifically speak out against it.

That kind of contextualizing rarely makes it into the press, or gets a public airing. But it happens.

Posted by Tel | March 20, 2008 11:57 AM

Berger -- I think one of the reasons why Obama is being evaluated in terms of Wright's positions is not because people are confusing religion with philosophy, but because Wright's church has infused so much politics into religion.

What? Politics and religion?? Together?? Nooooooooooooo!!! Not in America!!

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Ross is a Catholic, and I wonder what he has done in all of his years as a Catholic to try to convince his Church to stop aiding and abetting the molestation of children. Sure, it's possible that none of his "personal" priests have been directly involved in such activities, but has he urged them to work within the Church to change the culture of secrecy and neglect which has enabled so many predators? If not, what moral standing does he have to suggest that Obama is somehow lacking because he didn't make it a priority to vet every last freaking comment made by Jeremiah Wright?

So some political ops have spent thousands of man-hours pouring over Wright's speeches and have cherry-picked some so-called "horrible" moments - moments which are no more "horrible" than things said by preachers who have been ensconced in the GOP intestine for decades - and now conservatives think they've sunk Obama unless he can prove he smacked Wright for them? Yeah, sure.

So let's hear what Ross has done, as a Catholic, to make his feelings known his own Church about its role as the premier international protectorate for child molestors. Take the beam out of your own eye and all of that, Ross. I believe old Ross went to Harvard and was an active Catholic in Bernard Law's diocese, and Law was one of the very worst actors in the molestation scandals - a man of such low character that he was probably worse than some of the actual molestors. Law now has a plum Vatican post. Has Ross spoken out about this? If not, why not?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 20, 2008 12:08 PM

The question seems to be, "What did he hear and when did he hear it?" To me, it's a bit like the Don Imus thing: Imus was on the air for two decades, a big name in the industry and someone who has had high-powered politicians on regularly.

Then there was you-know-what.

So why was Imus fired after his bigoted insult but not before? Because he hadn't "crossed the line." Sure he'd said controversial things lots of times. But he'd never gone that far in that way. And when he did, he got nailed. Did anyone ask John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or any other politician who'd been on his show why they would associate with someone who would make comments like that? No, because during the time of their association, he hadn't made "comments like that."

The idea that Wright was generally within bounds but on very rare occasion went over the edge is not unlike the idea that Imus was generally within bounds but on very rare occasions went over the edge.

Everybody's trying to infer from the ten seconds we see on TV what twenty years of sermons were like. Did Wright on a weekly basis make statements the equivalent of Imus's "nappy-headed hos" remark? Did Imus?

If we want to know whether Imus's comment was just par for the course or really a departure, we play his old tapes. If we want to know whether Wright was constantly so divisive, we should check his other sermons. Trying to read into 10 seconds of video what Obama did or did not hear while he sat in the pews is unnecessary and unfair.

Posted by David | March 20, 2008 12:13 PM

"There are quite a few white people who will think, "Well, yeah, he's an ignorant rube who doesn't know any better. What's more, he's one of those Southerners. Prob'ly had hate spoonfed to him from his daddy. Sad, really. It's a good thing he doesn't speak for the rest of us." But almost nobody really takes the time to deliberately, specifically speak out against it.

That kind of contextualizing rarely makes it into the press, or gets a public airing. But it happens."

What you call "contextualizing" is really an ethnic and racial stereotype. Obama stereotyped his pastor by "contextualizing" him as an angry, aggrieved black man.

Now, help me out here ... when are racial stereotypes okay and when are they wrong?

Posted by dmk | March 20, 2008 12:14 PM

This is one of the best threads on the speech I've seen. Very thoughtful analysis.

What I find profoundly depressing about the conversation right now is the fairly regular exaggeration about what Jeremiah Wright actually said. I've seen all the videos many times, and I'm hard-pressed to find any "flagrantly racist and hateful views," as Randall puts it.

He accuses the government of a variety of sins, including the false and stupid conspiracy theory about AIDS, but at what point does he say he hates white people, or in fact any other people? Are we to think that because he thinks our government is sinful, and the government is run by rich white people, that he hates white people? Are Christians well known for hating sinners? Do we think Wright hates sinners?

He says the Bible says that God should (or does) damn America for its sins. How exactly is that a racist or hateful view? Because he shouted it? It's a theological view, and not an especially rare view coming from some sections of Christianity. It appears to me that the Pope has said the same thing, just in a more polite and roundabout way. Again, is it racist to say God should damn America? Is it even anti-American? It's only anti-American if it's anti-American to ever criticize America.

I really think the actual statements of Wright have been obscured by the fact that he looks angry and is shouting.

I'm also so frustrated with the news shows for not adding any context to these clips. I'm practically shouting at the TV. They have the whole sermon on DVD - can they not watch the whole thing and give us a summary? What's the basic message of the sermon? How do his statements fit in with the overall message? Could the news programs pull together a condensed version of the whole thing, or at least the lead-in and follow-up? How, exactly, are we supposed to debate the appropriateness of Wright's words without any context?

Posted by Don | March 20, 2008 12:17 PM

And as for you, Ross, in your attempts to grasp at the wind for some reason to dislike the speech and Obama you and other conservatives are busy moving the goalposts to the moon.

You can't very well argue that Obama ACTUALLY BELIEVES anything his pastor said, since you're a "thoughtful" conservative instead of a Buchanan dunderhead, so you're busy trying to find the intellectual framework for still hanging the millstone around Obama's neck. But YOU KNOW HE DOESN'T BELIEVE ANY OF WRIGHTS' CRAZY TALK. You know that he is an enlightened, thoughtful person.

So what then is a "thoughtful" conservative to do? You move the goalposts. It's not enough for Obama to denounce the crazy stuff the man says, and Ross can't very well argue that Obama actually agrees with Wright, so instead you suggest that Obama should have erased the angry views of a scarred man before they even rose to the surface. Nothing short than the rewriting of history will satisfy you.

This whole thing is getting beyond ridiculous. A bunch of Republicans lecturing a black man on how to tackle racism? Give me a fucking break.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 20, 2008 12:19 PM

They're okay when they're aired. They're okay when people admit that they exist and work to try to move beyond them. They're wrong when people assume that only one side is doing it, and refuse to admit that they're guilty of it themselves.

Posted by Tel | March 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Can someone give Randall a hug?

I'm sensing some of that white resentment Obama was talking bubbling up to the surface. It's okay. Take a deep breath. Are you comfortable? Those angry Black people aren't going to hurt you anymore. I promise. But it wouldn't hurt you to spend 15-20 mins a couple times a week looking at things from the perspective of 66 year-old Black man. Try not to do it too much at first because it's tough and i don't want you get hurt.

Posted by Marcus | March 20, 2008 12:29 PM

Tel - I agree with a lot of what you say about contextualizing or stereotyping. They're there, you have to work through them, and you can't do that without being honest about them.

What I don't agree with (and I'm not pointing at you here because I don't know what you think about this) is that they absolve anyone's conduct. They might explain it, but they don't excuse it. Despite the pressures of environment and experience, we expect people to be accountable as individuals for what they think and believe. Freedom of conscience and thought is one of the highest aspirations of liberal democracy.

I don't buy innocence by association any more than I do guilt by association.

Posted by dmk | March 20, 2008 12:37 PM

"However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance"

I don't mean to sound flippant, but isn't that what he's doing, and has done, in his speeches and campaigns for years? Not specifically for Trinity, but for everyone?

Talking specifically about Trinity though, I'm not sure exactly what he could have been expected to do. Bearing in mind that, if you check out other sermons rather than just relying on the infamous clips you'll find the clips aren't typical of sermons there, what should Obama have done? A lot of people seem to think he should have quit the church, but I don't see how this would have helped - throwing out something that's good overall because of a small part that's bad, is that really constructive? Would quitting the church have helped change these particular attitudes there? Or would it be better to continue attending the church - not because of the occasional controversial view expressed, but because of the good it does - while continuing to work to change attitudes every day?

Just speaking for me personally, if you take it that the majority of the sermons were not objectionable in any way, when these particular controversial issues did arise I would have spoken to the Pastor about it and let him know I disagreed with him on that issue. That'd be it. I wouldn't quit the church unless controversy was the norm. The fact is, if you walk out on everything and everyone you ever disagree with, you'll find yourself alone and with nothing pretty quickly, and you won't have achieved much in the process.

Posted by Aengil | March 20, 2008 12:38 PM

Well said, Aengil.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 20, 2008 12:42 PM

I just read the opening of Cost's take on the Obama speech. I love it when analysts praise the intellect of someone only to then tell us how that person is wrong.

But anyway, he asks whether Obama ever tried to persuade Wright. A sensible question to ask. I'd say he probably did. I'd say that Obama's position concerning the need for racial unity may well have arisen out of seeing in Wright the consequences of a separatist philosophy.

I don't see why it is an "essential problem" with the speech that Obama didn't say, "I told him lots of times he was wrong but he wouldn't listen! I told them all they were wrong but they fought me at every turn!" The question of whether Obama stood before the church and tried to show them all the error of their ways is flat out silly.

In fact, Obama's very presence in this race is his response to Rev. Wright. Cost says Obama did nothing about Wright's divisive philosophy. I say he's done and is doing more than anyone in the world. What better response to people like Wright who think that white folks are always trying to keep down black folks than to win presidential caucuses and primaries in predominantly white states like Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, and Wisconsin? Look at how blacks in South Carolina reacted after Obama won Iowa. Isn't that changing attitudes? Isn't that correcting a profound philosophical error?

The fact that Obama couldn't convince someone twenty years older than he to change his attitudes is meaningless to me. Look how much he's done to change the attitudes of millions of people around the country, both black and white.

People like Jay Cost aren't so much analyzing a speech to understand it as they are parsing it to find things with which they can disagree. Cost was right to praise Obama's intellect. He was wrong to believe he surpassed it.

Posted by David | March 20, 2008 12:45 PM

The Pastors on both Parties are not running for President. Vote Obama!

Elvis Presley - Amazing Grace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3XdXEJEI4E

Posted by Eagle Clan | March 20, 2008 12:46 PM

Well, what was Obama doing all that while that he was a member of Wright's church. I'd guess that he was doing what an aspiring politician ought to do. That is, he was taking close notes of what was going on and puzzling out why it was going on so that when he finally got to a position where he could do something about it that he would know what to do.

Did anyone ever stop to think that people have to get themselves prepared to address issues like this in the most effective way?

My take is that Obama kept his powder dry for the time when it could be used to greatest effect.

I never voted for anyone for president before and I'm 56 years old. I didn't vote for a president up till now because there has never been a presidential aspirant who deserved my vote.

Guess what. I'm voting this time. And I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 12:46 PM

This article is inaccurate. Obama directly pointed out that he had heard his Reverend say comments that could be construed as "controversial" while he sat in church.

Quote:

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

This Wright issue is not a new one. It is unfair to imply that Obama has somehow kept this material "under wraps" due to its sensitive nature. Obama has mentioned Wright in both of his books as well as on his website.

It is also unfair to make moral judgments about Obama using someone else's inconsiderate words and actions. I would hate to be judged through some of the ignorant and homophobic comments my former pastor has made during his sermons.

Posted by Marie | March 20, 2008 12:50 PM

I'm new to this blog and in my few visits it has been an incredibly civil and thoughtful discourse. As someone has already noted it's an inspiring change from the fist fights you see on cable TV. There are some arguments here I would disagree with, but I would offer two points. If you read Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog Sunday it will tell you that the preacher didn't spew white hatred every Sunday morning. It really is outrageous to judge the man by these few appalling excerpts. But more importantly, how long are we going to explore the archeology of the relationship between Obama and Wright? To do so is to ignore the more important and compelling themes of Obama's speech. This is day III. I hope there isn't a day IV. Time to let it go.

Posted by ken | March 20, 2008 12:52 PM

Have the offensive views of a white racist ever been "contextualized?"

If his name is William F. Buckley, then the answer is "yes, invariably".

Posted by Mike | March 20, 2008 12:53 PM

1- One cannot bring about greater unity by disowning and disavowing and jettisoning people. Churches or other kinds of movements concerned chiefly about purity and doctrinal orthodoxy do achieve their goals by excommunication, purges, and the like. Is that what we want?

2- Dissecting and rebutting statements by Rev Wright is one thing, but demonizing him is another. I have not directly read or heard his alleged statement that the US govt created the HIV/AIDS virus. If he said that, it is ridiculous. I did hear and read the YouTube excerpted statements about 9/11 and about drugs/prisons/3 strikes laws. What he said about these issues was quick and searing, but a good deal of it (if not all of it) can be defended with evidence. Some quick examples:

US policy and actions before 9/11 are relevant. Did the US cause 9/11? No, that would be a simpleminded position. But can we seriously address the 9/11 attack without thinking seriously about US policy toward Saudi Arabia? Or US support for the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahadeen that grew into the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

The US did drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are the only country to have ever used atomic or nuclear weapons. Far more people were killed in those bombings than on 9/11. What are the limits that we accept in wartime? Okay, argue that WWII was a legitimate war and the 9/11 attack was not part of a legitimate war . . . so let's compare the 9/11 war to the war in Iraq, the use of torture, etc. There is a problem here.

On drugs and prisons and 3 strikes: Is the drug problem directly traceable to and caused by US govt policy? Of course not. But . . . there is lots of evidence of the US govt's hands being in the drug trade or deliberately ignoring the drug trade in several instances: during the Vietnam War, during the Contra War in Nicaragua, and now in Afghanistan. And the War on Drugs has been effective only at breeding violence and gangsters. Prisons and 3 strikes laws? Is it even necessary to present a case that this country has a serious, serious problem with a racialized system of mass incarceration?

3) Last point. If we are going to jettison people for extreme views and actions, lets do it across the board. The attention to Rev Wright is the rankest hypocrisy. So many times we hear in response, "If a white minister said such things aimed in the other direction . . . " Well, we can look around and see exactly what happens in those circumstances. Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Billy Graham? Rev Hagee? Rev Parsley?

This is an opportunity to change not only the way we talk and act about race, but also the way we talk and act about class and gender and about religion, too.

What I would like to see is a round of public conversations about each of these subjects and the ways they intersect. A convocation of religious leaders would be the first step.... and I can think of no one better to the country in this direction than Senator Obama.

Clinton and McCain and Bush and others have shown that they can divide, split, demonize, exclude, and reduce us to a paralyzed, self-absorbed, dysfunctional, and dumbed-down mass of deadlocked red states versus blue states. Obama has shown that he can the leader country in a very different direction. That is not just talk. It has been action.

Posted by Joe Shmoe | March 20, 2008 12:53 PM

Had Obama stepped up to the daise on Tuesday holding aloft the severed head of Rev. Wright, some would still fault him for not holding it high enough.

Posted by Marcus | March 20, 2008 12:58 PM

"What I find profoundly depressing about the conversation right now is the fairly regular exaggeration about what Jeremiah Wright actually said. I've seen all the videos many times, and I'm hard-pressed to find any "flagrantly racist and hateful views," as Randall puts it."

The problem is, again, Wright ascribes to black liberation theology, an inherently racist perversion of scripture. Obama has been a member of this church for roughly 20 years, his entire adult life. Wright has been pastor there the entire time. Wright has always been a student of black liberation theology. Are people here honestly asserting that Wright only had a few isolated incendiary, racist comments? He went to Libya with Farrakhan, preaches anti-Israel sermons (considers their existence to be illegal), and adheres to a theology that focuses entirely on one race of people. Where in scripture does Christ - or any apostle - say "only preach to people who look like you?" And spare me the "white churches do it too," because most don't, certainly not as an official policy from the senior pastor. The Falwell and Robertson comparisons are absurd, primarily because no current - or past - presidential candidate has been a 20 year member of a church they pastor. That is far from a simple "guilt by association." The genius of Obama's speech is that it has allowed his supporters to switch the topic from the beliefs of the leader of Obama's church and whether or not Obama agrees with them, and if not, why is he still a member after all these years, to a general discussion of race. While it's a needed conversation, it isn't the question he was asked.

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 1:07 PM

Marcus,

You are right, indeed. Our country must address the desire that is within us, individually and as a public, to be reassured and vindicated by ritual acts of excommunication, denuciation, exposure and destruction, and, quite literally, execution.

Your remark about holding the Rev Wright's severed head aloft - and never being able to hold it high enough - is metaphorical.

But let us not forget that both President Bush and President Clinton got to the White House by very boastfully executing people - literally executing people, and that excuting black people has been front and center in the ugly history, not to mention executing the mentally impaired.

Is this a moment for change?

Posted by Joe Shmoe | March 20, 2008 1:08 PM

The problem with your criticism is that it's based on the assumption that the few snippets we've seen played over and over again are representative of most his sermons. I'm guessing that Sean Hannity scoured hundreds of DVD's that span at least 10 years, and he came up with 3. That tells me that the majority of those sermons were bread and butter sermons about Jesus and faith. In fact one of the sermons was delivered at Howard University, not his church.

Hundreds of religious leaders, black and white, have visited the church and heard Rev. Wright's sermons delivered all across the country. His sermons air on TV One, the only Black owned cable network, and I never heard him utter such comments, and I've listened for three years.

All that is to say, hundreds of religious leaders from across the country and tens of thousands of people at his church and at other churches across the country have heard Rev. Wright speak and never heard such remarks. Isn't it fair to conclude that these snippets are not the norm for his sermons?

That in no way excuses what he said, but at the same time, I don't think it's fair to conclude that for 20 years, on every Sunday, this is what Senator Obama heard coming from the pulpit.

Posted by Dawn | March 20, 2008 1:10 PM

There's a contradiction in Cost's words.

However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. He wakes up every morning dedicated to uniting people.

vs.

However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?

Obviously, Obama's entire public life has been dedicated to bringing this unity. It's nonsensical to talk about succeeding or failing yet--it's an ongoing process, an attempt to show another way to improve the situation of blacks in America. The only way to show angry blacks that unity is a better strategy is for unity to actually succeed in changing our policies. If you refuse to allow his strategy to succeed until he has convinced everyone to stop being angry, it's a Catch 22.

I mean, which should we spend more energy trying to reform? Black people who's anger at actual injustice has become counter-productive, or white people who are actually continuing the injustice? So long as there is a single black radical in a congregation, Cost will not allow anyone in that congregation to spend time on anything but condemning that radical.

Meanwhile, McCain is allowed to get away with embracing Falwell, Hagee and Parsley for no reason other than politics--in McCain's case, the anger and hate were not unfortunate baggage, but the very reason their endorsements are tactically useful. Anyone who denies a double standard here is engaging in really pathetic horseshit.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 20, 2008 1:14 PM

"Can't we all just get along...?" etc.

Remember the black boy dragged behind the car to his death? The lynchings of people from trees in front of their loved ones? Rodney King? Tips of the massive iceberg of injustice, hate and fear that has floated beneath America for 400 years.

And yet in spite of the centuries of tragedy and terror we have foisted upon black America, here is a man who says, "See what has existed, and see what we can be instead."

I'm 62, white, moderate/liberal. I've seen a lot of hucksters and a few good men in the Oval Office in my life.

Barack Obama has, simply, the seeds of greatness in him. He can transcend politics and so raise it to a higher leve. We've sensed that, we saw dramatic evidence of it the other day in his speech.

Racists and fear mongers are terrified of that kind of brilliant, measured rationality. They can't abide the notion that their tiny-minded hectoring of every exploitable negative could possibly lose traction. The Rush Limbaughs of the world need hate to thrive, but the thriving only breeds more hate and divisiveness.

Life in the U.S. under Obama would have to change, and many people fear change, even though it often brings greater peace and fortune to the people.

If we don't snap out of it and elect him in 2008, we deserve the disloyal Bushies we sometimes get saddled with in high office. We deserve the Swift Boat Veterans for stupidity. We deserve the nattering nabobs of nonsensical public vitriol.

I've had enough of this garbage. Personally, I believe there are all kinds of reasons why a person who hears controversial statements by those they otherwise admire do not confront those people, as Obama eloquently cited a few of in his speech.

There is another factor, which he talks about in his wonderful books (read them to know what this man is really all about)

The downside of being half black/half white is you at times struggle with the longing to belong and be identified with a group. Even as not being able to do that makes you stronger because it teaches you who you are at core, and it teaches you how to listen to, respond to, and always respect divergent points of view.

This is his heritage and, given his intellect, his political genius.

You could make a case that spiritually and emotionally, he has walked in everybody's shoes...and along the way, chosen the kind of man he would be, the level of integrity he would conduct his life at, and the path he would choose: to endure this miserable stupid low-brained political circus just to bring us to a higher level as a nation.

That's why I'm voting for him. He's the real deal. Maybe he should have changed churches, and perhaps he should have had someone stand there with a camcorder while he argued the finer points of black anger with the reverend. It would have been great if he had, sure. That would have made him even more perfect than the rest of us. And then the naysayers could trash him for being "St. Obama", as Hillary and Limbaugh have done.

His judgment about Wright was off, that's clear. It does not signify the one thing we should be concerned about such lapse of judgment: does he hold those views?

Unless you believe that he is, like most other politicians, lying through his teeth, you must trust that he told the truth in his speech. That there is no place in his being for such recidivistic views. America, he says, is not the place that Wright describes.

One must believe Wright said a lot of other uplifting things to counterbalance his own vitriol. But those clips won't make news, and welcome to American Media, 2008.

Obama's not perfect. We know that. We can sigh a little and realize he'll make mistakes, just as he himself has promised. He's human, like us.

He is also the perfect candidate, now, for our confused and troubled national psyche. This became only more evident after that incredible, courageous, principled, nuanced speech.

We don't get leaders like Obama very often in life.

If we let this chance go by, we deserve the typical mediocrity represented by Clinton and McCain that we will inherit.

We can only speak to our own inner calling. That too many Americans chose Bush over Gore only means that we weren't ready as a nation to be better.

Perhaps now we are.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 20, 2008 1:17 PM

mtgyau,

I'm an atheist. I am entirely used to pastors holding nonsensical views and spouting off falsehoods from their pulpit. I am somewhat perpexed as to how I can determine exactly which pile of intellectually bankrupt crap being propounded on which Sunday morning at which church is the worst. Is black liberation theology false. Assuredly so! So is the theology coming out of every other pulpit on Sunday mornings.

I am not however, blind to the communitarian and utilitarian purposes the church serves for those who think they need it.

If you want to condemn Obama for belonging to a church that preaches falsehoods have at it. There's nothing unusual about it.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 1:19 PM

"I mean, which should we spend more energy trying to reform? Black people who's anger at actual injustice has become counter-productive, or white people who are actually continuing the injustice? So long as there is a single black radical in a congregation, Cost will not allow anyone in that congregation to spend time on anything but condemning that radical."

Correction - should read "as long as there is a single black radical IN THE PULPIT..."

"Meanwhile, McCain is allowed to get away with embracing Falwell, Hagee and Parsley for no reason other than politics--in McCain's case, the anger and hate were not unfortunate baggage, but the very reason their endorsements are tactically useful. Anyone who denies a double standard here is engaging in really pathetic horseshit."

So now an endorsement from someone is equivalent to attending their church for 20 years? Those who equate the two are the ones "engaging in really pathetic horseshit."

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 1:19 PM

mtgyau

Your statements about the racial exclusivess of Rev Wright and Black Liberation Theology are unfounded. You are mistaking a primary concern with the social and cultural life of a community under siege with supposed theological beliefs that hold that salvation is limited to only one race. Black Liberation Theology is about the former, not the latter.

Martin Marty, the University of Chicago historian of Religion, perhaps the country's most prominent historian of religion, has written and talked about attending services at the Rev Wright's church. Professor Marty is white, by the way. And his eye-witness testimony is compelling.

Also, check out what Mike Huckabee had to say about the rev Wright affair. You can google the YouTube of his interview on a morning show just yesterday.

Posted by Joe Shmoe | March 20, 2008 1:29 PM

Mtgyau, you're joking right?

Let me help you and give you a little insight into something before you embarass yourself. Many Black people feel similar things about this country. You may not understand it but as Obama said that anger is real.

The liberation theology you fear was used by the Black community as a tool through which to build self esteem after years of being forced into 2nd class status. People need something to hold onto to keep from going crazy in the face the systematic marginalization in the greatest country in the world.

Now I understand you don't think that excuse anything but I respectfully submit that you are misguided.

It's funny. Given the amount of meds we prescribe in the suburbs for people grappling with their unhappy childhoods, you'd think people would at least be clued into the anger in the African-American community.

The brilliance of Obama was not in changing the subject but in asking for a little understanding. You know, one of those "he that is without sin cast the first stone" moments.

If you want to suggest that a 66 year-old Black is by his very experience racist/un-american you are more than welcome to but please state it explicity.

Posted by Marcus | March 20, 2008 1:31 PM

So now an endorsement from someone is equivalent to attending their church for 20 years? Those who equate the two are the ones "engaging in really pathetic horseshit."

Obama rejected and denounced the things Wright said that are at issue. Have you heard McCain strongly repudiate Hagee (whose endorsement he sought and happily accepted) for saying the Catholic Church is the Great Whore or for saying New Orleans brought Katrina on itself, or Parsley (his "spiritual advisor") for advocating Holy War? I sure haven't, not has the media asked him to. McCain's happy to embrace these people include them in his campaign, and no one in the media calls him on it. That IS horseshit.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 20, 2008 1:31 PM

Swells:

Nice job of Obama-ing my argument. You took a specific point about black liberation theology and generalized it to a discussion of theology in general. The problem is, while you may disagree with the (Reformed) theology preached at my church, it has no political component to it, because that isn't the role of the church, both from a religious perspective and a secular one (churches are non-profits, so politics from the pulpit should technically cause them to give up their tax-exempt status). Because of that, it wouldn't be particularly relevant to discuss it if I ran for office. You and I can disagree on the existence of God and the role of the church, but that doesn't grant someone in the pulpit (or the pew for 20 years) immunity from being judged based on what he says/believes, and changing the subject doesn't end the discussion, it prolongs it.

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 1:36 PM

There is one thing in this that I do find to be decidedly humourous. A black preacher gets in trouble for believing that white scientists created AIDS to kill blacks. For this he gets criticized by a lot of people whose sense of ethics came from some dead guy, whose mother was a virgin, that came back to life and floated to heaven or from some other guy who took an overnight flight to Mecca on a winged horse.

That is really rich in irony when you think about it.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 1:39 PM

I do not think we should ask McCain to denounce Hagee and Parsely.

Instead, he needs to be asked to explain them. Explain to the American people why Hagee is so anti-Catholic. Explain to the American people the history and the culture of his followers who respond to such messages.

Obama gave us an explanation.

Denuncuiations are cheap. And they are quick. Denounce and you are done. But explanations require attention and deeper engagement.

No more denunciations! It is time to demand explanation. Show us that you can explain our country to ourselves. Show us that you understand who we are.

Not knowing the difference between a Sunni and Shia is one route to disaster. Not understanding our country is another. Or maybe they are reaslly one and the same problem?

Posted by Joe Shmoe | March 20, 2008 1:39 PM

mtgyau, I was just trying to make a point that to criticize someone for holding outrageous views when the views you hold yourself are just as outrageous, nay more so since it is at least logically possible that white scientists might have created AIDS to kill blacks while it is not logically possible that an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, is kind of silly. What is that old saying about casting the mote out of one's own eye?

I don't know what reformed means in the context of religion but I'll bet you still think some dead guy came back to life and floated off to heaven. Does your religion support marriage rights for gays? If not, then your religion is no better than Wright's.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 1:46 PM

Joe Shmoe:

I am not asserting BLT holds that salvation is for only one race, but that they are only concerned with the salvation of one race. Actually, BLT is much more concerned with freedom from oppression than salvation, making it a more man-centered "theology."

I could not care less what Mike Huckabee says about Wright/Obama. Huck and Obama are very similar - great orators with little substance regarding actual policy.

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 1:53 PM

Come on, people - the man is a US Senator who is running for president of the United States! And his supporters want to argue that he shouldn't have been expected to challenge his pastor or church on their divisive theology? Which, btw, is not incidental but the heart of their Afrocentric ideology (whose tenets were scrubbed from the church's website a few days ago, but are available on various blogs online).

Posted by Judith | March 20, 2008 1:53 PM

What exactly did Wright say that was so offensive?

Posted by RICKM | March 20, 2008 1:57 PM

Jay Cost (writes)

"but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that under girds them. Obama clearly understands Wright's philosophy - even if he never heard Wright say what has generated this firestorm. If nothing else, yesterday he contextualized Wright into the broader narrative of the American racial division. He would not have been able to do that so ably if he had only learned about this philosophy last week."

This seems to be the trouble. Obama messiahism seems to run so high on the left that they have missed the practical political ramifications of this incident and resulting speech.

It would seem to me that America large is just getting introduced to Obama. To have such an intimate association with so far left a philosophy be the FIRST negative episode of his campaign cannot bode well.

It would seem that he has lost his hue of being above the racial divide. That questions concerning his relations with far left race rhetoric rather than put to bed, have now been legitimized.

Posted by Fitz | March 20, 2008 1:57 PM

Swells:

Believing in the virgin birth has no political implications. Believing that the gov't created aids does. The likelihood that either happened is irrelevant.

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 1:57 PM

mtgyau, that's another position that is decidedly humourous. Have you looked at the policy positions on Obama's web site. The guy is a policy wonk (as one would expect from a former editor of the Harvard Law Review). If you don't know what the substance of his policies are, it's because you haven't taken the time to find out. I don't agree with all of them but a shortage of policy there isn't.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 1:58 PM

Jay Cost (writes)

"but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that under girds them. Obama clearly understands Wright's philosophy - even if he never heard Wright say what has generated this firestorm. If nothing else, yesterday he contextualized Wright into the broader narrative of the American racial division. He would not have been able to do that so ably if he had only learned about this philosophy last week."

This seems to be the trouble. Obama messiahism seems to run so high on the left that they have missed the practical political ramifications of this incident and resulting speech.

It would seem to me that America large is just getting introduced to Obama. To have such an intimate association with so far left a philosophy be the FIRST negative episode of his campaign cannot bode well.

It would seem that he has lost his hue of being above the racial divide. The questions concerning his relations with far left race rhetoric rather than put to bed, have now been legitimized.

Posted by Fitz | March 20, 2008 2:00 PM

Marcus:

I know that many black people feel similar things about this country, and as long as people like Wright are in pulpits and influential people like Obama belong to their congregations, many will continue to believe the gov't created aids and 9/11 was an inside job. Tell me how that helps move toward reconciliation.

Posted by mtgyau | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM

mtgyau, Believing in the virgin birth has no political implications? Do you support marriage rights for gays and lesbians? If not, guess where that position came from. The list of such issues that are directly informed by which particular pile of superstitious rubbish what percentage of the population believes at some particular time goes on ad nauseum.

Do you seriously believe religious beliefs have no political impact? Hey, I can't even buy a bottle of wine on Sunday before 12 Noon where I live. What planet do you live on?

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 2:05 PM

mtgyau-

Wright never said that 9/11 was an inside job--he said that 9/11 was partly the result of the US's involvement in the Middle East over the past 50 years.

You would have to be a complete moron not to agree with that, because its true.

Posted by RICKM | March 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Judith (writes)

"Come on, people - the man is a US Senator who is running for president of the United States! And his supporters want to argue that he shouldn't have been expected to challenge his pastor or church on their divisive theology? Which, btw, is not incidental but the heart of their Afrocentric ideology (whose tenets were scrubbed from the church's website a few days ago, but are available on various blogs online)."

More than "challenge" I would say "even associate". My instincts tell me that this is what Obama believes, hence his 20 year commitment to the Church the man & his message.

There are more than enough mainstream black churches were liberation theology is not preached. One would think that an aspiring politician like Obama would distance himself from politically problematic associations UNLESS he believed in the philosophy strongly enough to want to risk the association.

The man is no dummy. So why would a savvy politician maintain an association that was potentially damaging? I think if Obama could go back in time he would pick a different pastor (for purely political reasons) He cannot: therefore he must attempt to spin this disreputable association as something other than what it is.

Posted by Fitz | March 20, 2008 2:11 PM

mtgyau, Do you seriously believe that the US supporting practically every tin horn dictator to come along in the middle east for decades had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? The fact of the matter is that the AIDS statement Wright made is about the only one I've heard that doesn't have at least some basis in fact. Government peddling drugs to blacks? Go back to the Iran Contra scheme of Reagan. Guess what, the government, thru the fine upstanding efforts of that uber patriot Ollie North and the CIA was, in all likelihood, importing cocaine and supplying black distributors in Watts in LA pimarily for sale to blacks.

Guess what, a lot of what Wright said wasn't as far-fetched as you think it was.

Posted by swells | March 20, 2008 2:11 PM

To me the "Government created AIDS" thing is a blood-libel against white people. It's the kind of talk that gets people killed. Spreading it is evil.

Nothing Obama can say or do now, after he's been busted, will excuse him for having associated himself with, exposed his children to, and funded (about $40,000 in total donations about the same time his wife was having trouble affording ballet lessons for said children) this hatemonger.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | March 20, 2008 2:12 PM

Some incredible people compared the rants of Rev.Wright to similar sermons by racist white preachers. Let me tell you about not so subtle difference between the two. The former rants were out of bitterness and frustration of being poweless in a white dominant society, whereas the latter are all about pure hatred and arrogant sniggers at other so called 'inferior' races. They can not be more different. Rev. Wright no doubt had a big mouth and Obama is paying the price for it. How many of those white politicians are paying the price for the bigotry of their white associates ? None. It says a lot about the very racist society that is American which refused to change itself to a better place.

Posted by Indignant | March 20, 2008 2:16 PM

Again, (besides the AIDS thing) what did Wright say that was so bad?

Posted by RICKM | March 20, 2008 2:18 PM

Mtgyau,

Your problem is what exactly? That Obama belongs to a church where silly thing get said occassionaly? People believe silly things when silly things have been done to them. So I guess your real fault is with this country for so isolating a racial minority as to make them susceptible to silly ideas.

I guess the path toward reconciliation is the recognition of the source of the problem and try to correct it. Maybe the correct response I suppose if for Obama to actually prove his pastor wrong by example by running a campaign that inspires a cross-section of people. But I also suppose that when people attack Obama for his failings to distance himself it kinda proves the pastors point that this still a racist country.

Funny isn't it?

Posted by Marcus | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM

A bunch of Republicans lecturing a black man on how to tackle racism? Give me a fucking break.

One reason we're so uninterested in any sort of "national conversation about race" is that such "conversations" always start with us being told to STFU.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM

RICKM writes: "Wright never said that 9/11 was an inside job--he said that 9/11 was partly the result of the US's involvement in the Middle East over the past 50 years.

You would have to be a complete moron not to agree with that, because its true."

Of course it's true. It's also true that most movement conservatives are complete morons, and that a majority of them still think Iraq was involved in 9/11.

That belief is at least as insane as the AIDS rumor, which gained currency in the black community (at least in part) because the US government did once deliberately infect black men with syphilis and leave them untreated - apparently just for the hell of it. Then there's the Completely Insane War On Drugs which is largely a war against black Americans.

But according to the conservatives pushing this assault on Obama anyone who mentions such things hates whitey and is anti-American. Uh huh.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 20, 2008 2:27 PM

RICKM (asks)

"Again, (besides the AIDS thing) what did Wright say that was so bad?"

Discover for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wright+&search_type=

What do you want people to say... the man is a far leftist. Most Americans are not. They don’t associate either the tone or substance with Christianity or legitimate politics.

Obama’s lifelong association with this pastor puts him way outside mainstream opinion. Hence the need for a defensive speech.

Posted by Fitz | March 20, 2008 2:28 PM

Fitz-

Seriously. WTF is Wright saying that is so horrendous? That America has supported terrorism? OH NOEZ!

Nevermind the fact that its true.

So what are you saying, that the US didn't bomb Hiroshima?

Posted by RICKM | March 20, 2008 2:33 PM

RICKM

Never mind.

Posted by Fitz | March 20, 2008 2:37 PM

So thats it? You're unable to reproduce a quote from Wright that is racist, even though everyone on the right takes it as fact that Wright is a racist? Anyone?

Posted by RICKM | March 20, 2008 2:40 PM

RICKM asks: "Again, (besides the AIDS thing) what did Wright say that was so bad?"

He said Jesus was black.

That and that alone will piss off most movement conservatives.

Didn't you know that the Virgin Mary had alabaster skin?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 20, 2008 2:41 PM

I'm with RICKM. I'm a white guy from Boston, from one of those "white ethnic enclaves" everyone talks about, and I don't hear hatred in Wright's sermons. I hear a remarkably stupid conspiracy theory about AIDS, but otherwise it's all either inconvenient but verifiable fact (that "rich white people" run the country; that Hillary has never been called a n*****; that criticism of Israel is taboo in most places) or opinion well represented in our political discourse (America's chickens roosting after 9/11 -- a key piece of Ron Paul's argument).

And from what I've seen or read of his other sermons, he's not a hater. He doesn't push some "race war" line as the explanation of every evil. He's pretty main-line Christian in most of the stuff I've seen.

So I don't think Obama should have left the church based on what I've seen. I think it's a false equivalence to say this guy is a David Duke or a Louis Farrakhan. And I really, really think the right wing has some goddamn nerve harping on this after all the lengths they've gone to defend Pat Robertson et al.

(I'm not including you in that, Ross. I appreciate your straightforward and honest attempt to deal with O's flaws and strengths.)

As for Black Liberation Theology as a racist belief system -- the trouble is, white churches have practiced a White Liberation Theology for so long no one recognizes it anymore. I've seen several people upset about Wright's line that Jesus was a "poor black man." "Jesus wasn't black, he was a Jew," they've said. But there ARE early depictions of him as a black man. And I sure don't see those folks running out and replacing their blue-eyed Euro-Christ statues with more Semitic versions.

Frankly, I think every white Christian should meditate on the image of a black Jesus. Try him on for size. I mean, what's the difference, right?

Posted by scarpy | March 20, 2008 2:46 PM

Ralph Phelan writes: "One reason we're so uninterested in any sort of "national conversation about race" is that such "conversations" always start with us being told to STFU."

But the main reason you're uninterested is that you simply don't give a shit. Why not just be honest about that?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | March 20, 2008 2:47 PM

Fitz,

I accept that Wright is outside the American political mainstream. That doesn't make him outside the mainstream of black Protestantism.

Conspiracy theories about the US Government are not racist. What we have here is basically the right-wing political correctness Giuliani attempted to use against Ron Paul. It hardly even worked in the Republican primary.