The Politician and the Preacher

You can find my take on the Jeremiah Wright contretemps over at the Current. I had been skeptical about the notion that Wright's racialist theology would turn out to be Obama's Achilles heel, as Rod Dreher among others has suggested it might be, in part because I have the sense that most Americans view the mild Afrocentrism that many black churches dabble in with a mix of (appropriate) tolerance and (inappropriate) condescension, rather than with fear or distaste. But after watching these videos, I'm inclined to think that Wright's Chomskyite politics - and particularly the Ward Churchill-style, "chickens coming home to roost" take on 9/11 - represent a real hazard for the Obama camp, and one that the candidate needs to find a way to address directly, rather than just waving it away. Like Daniel Larison, I think there's something to be said for politicians refusing to bow to media pressure to disavow their friends, even when those friends happen to be kooks. But Wright is a mentor, rather than just a chum, which makes his kookery more relevant - and if he's really Obama's friend he'll understand that a man hoping to President needs to be "forceful and candid," as Andrew puts it, about their relationship, and more explicit than Obama's been so far about repudiating Wright's politics.

One other point about the Reverend: He seems like a truly remarkable showman in the pulpit, whatever you think of the opinions he's expressing. And given the amount of attention lavished on Obama's preacherly cadences, it's interesting to contrast the restraint of Obama's style of sermonizing with his pastor's vastly more flamboyant approach:

Comments

The thing is, how is that enough?

"I am shocked, SHOCKED! that Jeremiah says these things."

"What, you didn't know? He just happened to make all these comments the Sundays you skipped?"

There's really no way around it. He can't disavow them, because this is the guy who drew him to Christianity. This is the guy who he's been following for 20 years. And suddenly he's shocked?

I don't see how he disavows it without the press eating him alive for it.

Posted by Cal | March 14, 2008 11:20 AM

You know, I really wish someone as bright as Ross would actually take the time to interrogate Chomsky's actual arguments instead of making vague allusions to America-hating. Chomsky is absolutely unequivocal in his belief that no Americans deserved to die on 9/11, just as he has always been absolutely unequivocal in his belief that there is no justification for Hamas-style suicide bombings. I'm very tired of the out of hand dismissal of a man who, whatever you think of his politics, is one of the great intellects in the world. And I'm also very tired of anyone who accurately states the conduct of the America foreign policy apparatus being dismissed as a crank for actually knowing recent history. (History, by the way, which is confirmed over and over again through Freedom of Information Act releases.)

Posted by Freddie | March 14, 2008 11:43 AM

I think this is Obama's biggest weakness. I also don't know how easy it will be for him to get around it.

I'm not sure what to make of the chickens coming home to roost comments. On one hand, its certainly true that most Americans don't think much or care much about the suffering we inflict on others around the world. In that sense, its certainly jarring how Americans make such a big deal about 3,000 people killed on 9/11, but can't be bothered about the fact that we have killed at least 100 times that number in Iraq. Its politically incorrect to say this, but true nonetheless. I don't think this reflects particularly badly on America. Its just human nature.

On the other hand, to take what he says literally--that is, to think that 9/11 was some kind of divine retribution for our sins--is just plain nuts. But what do you expect? He's a minister after all.

Posted by Jim W | March 14, 2008 11:49 AM

Ross, I'm waiting for the following two posts:

1. A post on McCain and Hagee that acknowledges the simple fact that if Wright counts as a "kook," then Hagee is a completely insane. Even if we just stipulate that Wright's remarks are out-of-bounds, nothing he's said comes anywhere near to being as problematic as Hagee's. Not only does Hagee embrace the hate that Wright forswears but he holds to a set of beliefs so ludicrously sci-fi in their weirdness that they put 60s-era Marvel Comics plots to shame.

So when will you begin wringing your hands over McCain?

2. Where's the post on torture? For all of your moralizing about abortion and prostitution, you've yet to condemn torture. I suppose you're still too afraid that National Review won't publish anymore of your movie reviews if you call them on the moral monstrosity that your fellow conservatives can't seem to get enough of.

Posted by Jim | March 14, 2008 12:01 PM

Was that video supposed to ba an example of something Obama has to denounce? Becasue I didn't see anything wrong with that.

Posted by cw | March 14, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, so, grains of salt, and all.

But Larison's really onto something. Obama started going to church as part of becoming involved in a community, quite a while ago. It had nothing to do with politics.

Whereas John McCain has sought and embraced people with insane views, like Hagee and Parsley, solely for political reasons.

But the TV news likes to cover scary black men much more than scary white men, so the issue is probably a liability for Obama.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 14, 2008 12:09 PM

What did Senator Obama know of this kook, when did he know it, and what did he do upon learning about Wright's racist rantings?

Posted by questions | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM

(appropriate) tolerance and (inappropriate) condescension

Sorry, but if someone wants to have an explicitly racial approach to religion then tolerance with condescension is the best they can hope for from me. If I thought that such a religion were serious business (that is, if I weren't inclined to condescend) it would be war to the knife.

Posted by bbartlog | March 14, 2008 12:18 PM

Jim says . . .

"1. A post on McCain and Hagee that acknowledges the simple fact that if Wright counts as a "kook," then Hagee is a completely insane. Even if we just stipulate that Wright's remarks are out-of-bounds, nothing he's said comes anywhere near to being as problematic as Hagee's. Not only does Hagee embrace the hate that Wright forswears but he holds to a set of beliefs so ludicrously sci-fi in their weirdness that they put 60s-era Marvel Comics plots to shame."

Uh, steady on there Jimbo, McCain (cravenly) accepted an endorsement of convenience from a Christian nutter, while Obama has been mentored for 20 years by a racist preacher who just happens to include among his many conspiracy theories the belief that AIDs was created by whites and inflicted upon the non-white world by the CIA. The latter relationship would seem to call for more justification, unless of course you believe it too, in which case: nevermind.

Posted by Horatio | March 14, 2008 12:27 PM

Horatio,

Thanks for the comment on my comment. A few replies:

1. I believe very little of what Wright said, certainly not the BS about the CIA and AIDS.

2. However, strange thought the CIA-AIDS business is, it is nowhere near as lunatic as what Hagee believes. Dude, the guy thinks he's a lead player in a cosmic struggle to bring about the apocalypse by fomenting crisis in the Middle East. Watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer much?

3. My point wasn't that Wright is right and that Hagee is wrong. My point is that if voters should be concerned about Obama's connection to Wright, then they should be concerned about McCain's connection to Hagee. Trouble is, though, nobody but bloggers is paying any attention to McCain-Hagee. (I think the problem has to do with the fact that millions of Americans also believe that they're lead players in a cosmic struggle to bring about the apocalypse by fomenting a crisis in the Middle East. Sigh.)

4. Do I believe that we should be concerned about Obama's relationship with Wright? Absolutely--nothing I wrote implied otherwise. Is that relationship a deal-breaker? Absolutely not. I side with Andrew Sullivan on this issue.

5. Ross, condemn torture. Please. You'll still get jobs writing for crazy right-wing rags like The National Review. They won't be as nice to you at DC right-wing cocktails parties. You know, 'cause of their torture love. But they'll still let you write movie reviews. So condemn torture already.

Thanks, again Horatio. Good points.

Posted by Jim | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM

Jim- how long is it going to take you to figure out that Ross almost never reads our replies and doesn't know or care what any of us think or say?

Post for your own amusement, not because you genuinely expect an answer from Ross. He's not ignoring YOU or evading YOUR questions in particular. He's ignoring ALL of us, even those of us who usually agree with him.

Posted by astorian | March 14, 2008 12:44 PM

Ward Churchill-style, "chickens coming home to roost" take on 9/11

Ward Churchill-style? Seem more Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell style to me.

Posted by Tiparillo | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM

Jim,

My point about McCain is that his tie to Hagee (who is as crazy as they come) is a cynical political calculation that offers some unflattering insights into his character, but not his beliefs. In this view, Obama's tie to Wright is much more problematic, especially given the black nationalist tone of his autobiography.

As for Andrew, he has no deal breakers with regard to Obama. But watch out for the nasty breakup in '09 when the inspirational baby talk gets translated into policy. Don't believe me? Just check out the Sullivan state of mind regarding GWB circa '03.

Posted by Horatio | March 14, 2008 12:59 PM

Ross - I have the sense that most Americans view the mild Afrocentrism that many black churches dabble in with a mix of (appropriate) tolerance and (inappropriate) condescension, rather than with fear or distaste.

Sorry, but social politeness requires people not only to tolerate the idiotic, but also not launch into an attack on the idiotic and declaring it idiotic while supporting the "right" to be an idiot.
In some venues of life, that means all of us employ condescension to achieve that politeness. White lies are often well-meaning, pure condescension employed to avoid the embarassment of our friends and intimates. Condescension is our way of not launching controversy into sensitive race, gender, ideological, or religious matters.

The alternative to condescension when we think others are drooling idiots or have wrong beliefs or actions but we are not challenging their "wrongness" out of sensitivity - is to engage in moral or critical thinking relativism - to accept their "wrongness" and achieve TRUE unqualified tolerance.

Posted by chris ford | March 14, 2008 1:03 PM

Obama's preacher is certainly a kook, although one whose political beliefs aren't nearly as ridiculous as his religious beliefs... but I digress, the real point here is that all the "Obama hates America, because his preacher likes to point out how blacks have been systematicaclly victimized by institutionalized white supremacy, which is of course totally racist to point out..." only underscores the flagrant double standard about hating America. If you're on the right, there is literally nothing you can't say about how evil this country is without a pat on the back from everyone and an invite to a seat at the grown-up table. From Jerry Falwell to Dinesh D'Souza and on and on, if you hate America because it's culture offends you for whatever reason, than by all means sir, right this way towards mainstream legitmacy, of course liberals are the blame for 9/11, I mean if this country wasn't so free, then the terrorists would have no reason to hate us, at least they know how to keep a lid on their women...but if you, like Noam Chomsky or others mererly point out the laundrey list of atrocities and outrages for which we bear responsibility for...well then denounce and reject you must.

I say again, if you're a bigoted lunatic like Hagee, Dobson, or Rod Parsley you can call for the destruction of fully 1/5 of the human beings on planet earth, and denounce as evil probably 3/4s of American citizens, and face no reprocussions whatesoever, whereas, if you criticize the conduct of your own government or refuse to participate in some ongoing jingoistic charade (flag pins anyone?) then you're obviously beyond the pale.

Posted by dearleader nyc | March 14, 2008 1:22 PM

Only people in the blogosphere think Church goers agree with their pastors/priests/ministers about politics. That's because people in the blogosphere are usually atheists, always secular and give an inordinate degree of importance to politics. I would expect Ross to rise above this, since I doubt he has always seen eye-t-eye with his parish priest about policy matters, but it's election season.

Posted by Pithlord | March 14, 2008 1:29 PM

As it now stands, the only GOP candidate to go to New Orleans during the campaign has been Ron Paul.

And we are worried that Obama might be bad for the country on race issues?

Ha!

Only in Conservative wet dreams..

Posted by Amicus | March 14, 2008 1:36 PM

I was just going to post something similar to what Pithlord said. Most people 1) go to a church they chose for reasons mostly unrelated to the content of the sermons, and 2) have older relatives who say blatantly racist things but whom they love anyway. Wright will turn off some people, no doubt--but it won't destroy Obama the way some bloggers seem to think it will.

Posted by Brendan | March 14, 2008 1:41 PM

oh, yeah, and ... for overwhelmingly respectable white America, here's a question:

"What was the topic of your, er, 'spiritual mentor' sermon last Sunday and the week before?"

Be honest.

I'd wager that 80% (or more) have no recollection.

Posted by Amicus | March 14, 2008 1:42 PM

As an Obama supporter, I hope you guys are right that this is no big deal. It seems like it could be a big deal to me. As mentioned above, the difference is that Obama has a close relationship with the guy going back many years. Its not just some guy whose endorsement he sought recently.

This is by far the biggest thing I'm worried about in the campaign.

Posted by Jim W | March 14, 2008 1:46 PM

Brendan and Pithlord are very much correct about the actual meaning of Rev. Wright's remarks.

However, the fact that it's a trifle in real life doesn't mean that it won't be a huge deal on MSM yakfests and the partisan propaganda they're based on.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 14, 2008 2:15 PM

This fellow Wright represents the worst of identity and victim-hood theology and politics. Fortunately, we have some black leaders including Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Alvin Poussaint, and Thomas Sowell who, fully aware of past injustices, argue that their people need to rise above racial victim-hood and move ahead through hard, disciplined work and the content of their character. Sure it’s not easy for them given extant racism but that’s no excuse for self-defeating passionate rage.

Martin Luther King fought racial injustice fiercely without ever coming close to saying God Damn America.

It's unlikely that any one of these excellent black people would have subjected themselves to a preacher of Wright’s ilk.

Obama claims that Wright is like some uncle who says stupid things but is still lovable. However, this is rather different given that Obama has written that Wright is a mentor who provided the title phrase for his book Audacity of Hope

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 14, 2008 2:38 PM

Obama did not dismiss this. Read here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling.html

Also note Obama's humorous point: He can't be both a radical Christian and Muslim sleeper agent at the same time. So which of the self-impeaching smears is the real achilles heal?

"It is true that my pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them, by the way, are controversial directed at the African American community and calling on them [to] start reading books and turn off the TV set and engage in self-help. And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth. It is also true that he comes out of the '60s -- he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience.

He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement, and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause -- that was a source of tension. So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments with relation, rooted in that. Not necessarily ones that I share. But that is the context within which he has made those comments.

...

He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African Americans that maybe a possibility that's just -- I am not suggesting that's definitive. So the point I make is this, that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities, and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge, and that's the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago . And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community in Chicago should check out those credentials

Posted by PaulC | March 14, 2008 2:46 PM

"That's because people in the blogosphere are usually atheists, always secular and give an inordinate degree of importance to politics."

Or sometimes they're close to the reverse. Like they're intensely religious and agree with their pastors/priests/ministers about politics. (Or if they don't they find a pastor they do agree with)

Mildly religious people who don't take their pastors views too seriously are probably rare in the blogosphere.

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 3:11 PM

What the heck does it mean "I'm still in Bible country?" and how can a guy this vicious talk about loving his enemies with a straight face? What a messed up cult.

Posted by Pauli | March 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Only people in the blogosphere think Church goers agree with their pastors/priests/ministers about politics. That's because people in the blogosphere are usually atheists, always secular and give an inordinate degree of importance to politics. I would expect Ross to rise above this, since I doubt he has always seen eye-t-eye with his parish priest about policy matters, but it's election season.

I don't know what my priest's political views are because he doesn't preach about them. Generally, he, or the priest giving that week's sermon, preaches on the day's Gospel reading. If my priest spoke frequently and passionately about politics, within the pulpit and without, and if his church were one with an explicitly stated political (in the usual sense that word is understood) and racial/ethnic mission, then you're darn right that I would be giving assent to those views by continuing to attend and continuing to give money to that church. More so if I were an adult convert to a congregational Protestant denomination, and still more if I claimed said priest as my mentor. Those whom you choose to follow and choose to give your time, treasure, and talent are more indicative of your beliefs, character, and aspirations than those who choose to follow you. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Obama doesn't get to spend 20 years going to this church and claiming that this man changed his life without explaining how he finds this stuff acceptable. Nor should he be allowed to compare Wright to a crazy uncle - one doesn't choose one's uncles. Obama chose Reverend Wright, when he was a man in his late twenties. As for giving "an inordinate degree of importance to politics," Obama is a politician, fer cryin' out loud, not a plumber. Obviously politics is very important to him. So is community activism, Rev. Wright's other avocation. Obama's not some apolitical pew-sitting naif, and it's not like there weren't and aren't numerous other churches in Chicago he could have attended. If Obama wants to stand by his mentor, that's a fine and honorable thing to do, but if so, given the magisterial role denoted in terms such as mentor and spiritual advisor, he'd better explain in what ways he dissents from his teacher. And if he does dissent from his teacher, why he is still in that church. When Protestants don't like what the preacher teaches, they can and do protest leave. Protestants don't have the same notion of "the Church" as a discrete institution that Catholics do.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Catholics can and do switch priests if they don't like what one says. I come from a fairly conservative family so in my case this occurs when the priest is saying something heterodox or out-of-line with Church tradition.

The United Church of Christ (as a whole) is mostly white, liberal, and mainline. I'm wondering if this "Trinity United Church of Christ" is even in it or how they feel about it.

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 3:52 PM

I was sort of raised in a UCC congregation, of the white liberal mainline kind. There is no central authority to speak of. The church was formed by the merging of a mainline German-Protestant denomination, mostly in the Northern states, and the old Congregationalist denomination. My understanding is that the Congregationalists had been active in abolition and attracted a lot of black members, especially in the South. I believe there is still also a notable difference between the old mainline German congregations in the UCC, which have largely morphed into gooey feel-good liberalism, and the old Congregationalist wing, which has if anything a more radical commitment to social justice, but also a more conservative theology.

Posted by Brendan | March 14, 2008 4:01 PM

I was using congregational to refer to the ecclesiology, rather than a specific denomination such as the UCC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_polity

Re: Catholic church and priest shopping

Yes, it goes on, but a Catholic has an institution to point to, and a theory of the necessity of receiving sacraments, and their validity apart from the character of the man who performs them. And at least in theory, there is the possibility of discipline for the heterodox. A Catholic parish priest may be a nut, but doesn't define what Catholicism is, whereas a Protestant church that hires its own clergy and recognizes no higher ecclesiastical authority, is defined by what its local congregation and clergy do.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 14, 2008 4:14 PM

I'm still waiting... waiting.. for someone - anyone - to merge the "Bush/ Cheney Planned 9/11" theories with the "America Deserved 9/11" theories to create a single Grand Unified Theory of "Bush/ Cheney Planned 9/11 And America Deserved It". Or would that sit too uneasily with the impeachment drive?

Posted by Rod Blaine | March 14, 2008 4:26 PM

Heaven knows that I don't agree with many of the political positions (at least on social issues) of my (Anglican) confession.

About half the time I simply tune out the sermon. I don't go to church for the sermons, I go for the liturgy, and the hymns, and to hear the Gospel. The sermon is quite obviously the least important part of the service; only an agnostic would think otherwise.

Posted by Hector | March 14, 2008 4:59 PM

Here's Ross's gloss on Wright's remarks, up at the Current:

"Barack Obama's pastor's [said] that the U.S. invited the September 11 attacks with its support for state terrorism abroad."

I fail to see the kookiness. It may be wrong, but it's certainly reasonable. Is it kooky to suggest that the 9/11 attacks invited the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq?

Posted by Mark | March 14, 2008 5:05 PM

It seems to me the only people who will become truly offended and so upset that they can't vote for him are likely not going to vote for him anyway. I mean, they can accept Ferraro et al's comments but Oh noes! this one is just too wrong? Over the last few months I've seen the vilest underbelly aspect of our country in comments on articles about Obama (and sexism against Clinton too). We've just endured 7 years of the most corrupt, criminal administration that openly endorses torture and people are drawing the line at a black pastor pointing out, however hyperbolicly, that maybe just maybe our foreign policy and domestic policy has been less that kind to poor and nonwhite people? Really? That's where the line is? Where's their outrage up to now?

Posted by Lesley | March 14, 2008 5:14 PM

From conservative commentary on this stuff, one would think that the Biblical prophets spent most of their time saying, "Yea Judah! Kick some Assyrian ass!"

Posted by Pithlord | March 14, 2008 5:26 PM

Heaven knows that I don't agree with many of the political positions (at least on social issues) of my (Anglican) confession.

About half the time I simply tune out the sermon. I don't go to church for the sermons, I go for the liturgy, and the hymns, and to hear the Gospel. The sermon is quite obviously the least important part of the service; only an agnostic would think otherwise.

Lots of Protestants think otherwise. In sacramental churches - Catholic, Lutheran, Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox - the sermon is a minor thing indeed. In a low church Protestant denomination, based on sola scriptura, where often the Eucharist is celebrated only a few times a year, and as a commemoration only, the spoken and written word are vastly more central to worship. Besides, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is quite justly not known for its charismatic preachers.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 14, 2008 5:26 PM

What has McCain done to support Hagee? As far as I know, nothing. It's Hagee that's supporing McCain.

Posted by ed | March 14, 2008 5:51 PM

Hector, as an Episcopalian you would find the liturgy the most important; one might hear a subtly political Episcopal sermon, though not a blatantly racist one similar to those of Wright. This would be the same for serious Catholics.

However, in Wright's mainly black UCC church the music and sermon are central; Obama would most likely pay attention and remember his sermons. He titled his book, The Audacity of Hope after one of them.

Americans are actually trying to figure out Obama. So far two salient points are that he held the most liberal Senate voting record in 2007 and is involved in a church with a hard anti-white folk ideology. He talks fervently about bringing "change" to America, though a reasonable question is just how does a hard-edged liberal with an apparently racial grudge bring real change.

America, thank God, has not become Daily Kos land. Obama will need to prove his bona fides as a sensible, moderate politician before winning a general election. This business about Wright has set his cause back.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 14, 2008 5:58 PM

Hitler also was a great showman.

You latte liberals disgust me. I will vote for McCain over Obama anyday.

Posted by GB | March 14, 2008 6:06 PM

Anyone who doubts the stance of Obama's Trinity Church ought to read its statemrnt of purpose:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
In the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.

Interpret this however you might, this church is clearly racist on the side of blacks. There are some other statements about following Christ, though the main theme is along racial lines. Note that unashamedly black comes before unapologetically Christian

Any white candidate connected with such a racist church would long before now be tarred and feathered by the media.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 14, 2008 7:50 PM

Re: From Jerry Falwell to Dinesh D'Souza and on and on, if you hate America because it's culture offends you for whatever reason, than by all means sir, right this way towards mainstream legitmacy

Falwell and Robertson earned widespread condemnation for their 9-11 remarks inlcuding a rebuke from Bush. and D'Souza absurd work received was widely panned on the Right, if for no other reason than because it was seen as inappropriately sympathetic to Radical Islam.

Posted by JonF | March 14, 2008 8:19 PM

I love this. The America-hating liberal Obama Democrat party is going to try to take on the moderate McCain war hero Republican Party. Bring it on!

Posted by Mike | March 14, 2008 9:56 PM

I've been in black churches for more than 20 yrs. Half the time my husband and I were the only whites.
I will tell you that I have NEVER heard this racist tripe in any of them. Ever. This guy is an abberation and I'm sure that other black people will be shocked. The AIDS conspiracy is especially kooky.
This is a killer for Obama.

Posted by linda | March 14, 2008 10:06 PM

More double standards. Hagee hates Americans and thinks they deserved to die in New Orleans. Falwell and Robertson hate Americans and think they deserved to die from terrorists bombs and AIDS. But it's fine; they're good patriotic freedom-loving Americans.

Not Wright, though? What he says is UNACCEPTABLE!

Posted by Mike | March 14, 2008 10:15 PM

"In sacramental churches - Catholic, Lutheran, Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox - the sermon is a minor thing indeed. In a low church Protestant denomination, based on sola scriptura, where often the Eucharist is celebrated only a few times a year, and as a commemoration only, the spoken and written word are vastly more central to worship." TheOtherCyrus

I think he's right on that. In non-liturgical churches the "preaching" is usually much more important. That said I certainly know of *Protestants who go more for the music and community/fellowship. So it's not too implausible he doesn't care that much about many of his sermons.

Still usually the minister and his preaching is very significant for those denominations. In some ways moreso than the denomination itself. I did mention Catholics I know of who switch priests based on disliking homilies, but they don't often switch denominations over that. However it's not that unusual for a Presbyterian to decide that they like the Methodist minister better so switch. Or for a Freewill Baptist to switch over to Assembly of God because they like a minister they have. (Based on somewhat real cases)

*Virtually all Protestants I know are in non-liturgical churches. I know maybe two Lutherans and one Episcopalian.

Posted by Thomas R | March 14, 2008 10:22 PM

I just want to thank Obama and McCain for making the idea of an atheist president seem that much more appealing.

Posted by Bo | March 14, 2008 10:26 PM

This dude's a piece of work-- right down to the Morris Day and the Time imitation, with the turning around and sliding to the right and left. "Wok! Hallelujah!" I find him quite amusing, but maybe that's just me being "condescending."

Anyway, my guess is, this sort of thing serves to endear Obama to the crowd that already worships him, and makes the rest of us less likely to stay home on election day.

Posted by MD | March 14, 2008 10:52 PM

I have heard Reverend Wright criticized for making 'bigoted' remarks. From the clips I have seen thus far his principal 'racial' comments seem to have been to notice forcefully that America is controlled by 'rich white people.' Is this a controversial statement? Would it be more accurate to say that America is controlled by 'poor white people', 'rich black men' or 'lower middle class latinos'? If he had simply noted that America is controlled by 'rich people' would that just be a 'classist' statement that was unfairly inciting his congregation to class warfare? Are African Americans not permitted to note that, in general, they do not wield as much power as economically powerful whites? Are Hillary's supporters not permitted to note that women do not wield as much power as economically powerful white men? Are white working class men not permitted to note that they do not wield as much power as economically powerful white men? If not, then let's have a tea party and forget serious politics. That said, for those not familiar with black preaching style (and that's lots of folks), the stylistics will be off-putting. Obama is starting to address the impact of the clips, but has more work to do.

Posted by leif learning | March 15, 2008 9:34 AM

I think it's fair to say that America is controlled by rich white people, who like to protect their financial interests. To throw a bone to the conservatives, I would concede that America is ruled by rich, _socially liberal_ white people (for the most part).

The thing that bothered me about Reverend Wright wasn't the politics so much as the pelvic thrusts (during the 'Bill Clinton ridin' dirty' bit.) I think that isn't appropriate in church.

Posted by Hector | March 15, 2008 11:13 AM

I think the irony of this is that it totally belies the outcry over the Ferraro comments. Here we have a black preacher telling, and by the looks of it persuading, his congregation that they should vote for Obama because he's black and Hillary's white. Yet we're supposed to act shocked when someone innocently mentions that Obaman benefits from his race.

Posted by Tray | March 15, 2008 12:13 PM

I think that isn't appropriate in church.

I remember a story recently about a famous pastor who came to speak at a church. He walks up to the lectern and starts (paraphrasing here), "Folks, the world's a mess. Shit. We've got a global AIDS crisis, horrific poverty, endemic racism, broken families. It's a mess. ... And I'm willing to bet that 90% of you are still thinking about that swear word I used instead of any of those other problems."

Posted by Bo | March 15, 2008 12:19 PM

In most churches, if the minister prayed to God to damn the United States, the church would fire the minister, not lift him up high, as Obama's church has lifted Wright. In most churches, if the minister preached that the United States deserved 9/11 because it was so evil, the church would fire the minister, not lift him up high, as Obama's church has lifted Wright. Why would Obama ever have wanted to be a member of such a church, and why would he still want to be a member?

Posted by John | March 15, 2008 2:25 PM

I assume Ross chose this blogpost title as an ironic riff on Joe Hill's "The Preacher and the Slave" ("See, Joe? Not all organised religion is conservative"). Regarding old Shepherd Book here, you would think ceteris paribus that a preacherman who can put on his resume "Agrees With Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson On Controversial Issue; Helped Prominent African[-]American Convert From Islam to Christianity" would get more respect from the right wing than he actually has.

Posted by Rod Blaine | March 16, 2008 5:41 AM

John,

Maybe the real question is what America has done to alienate black people so much that they cheer when Rev. Wright says 'God damn America'.

And let's be clear what he was saying here. He wasn't calling on God to damn America just for the hell of it. He was calling for the judgment of God on America for its manifest sins, and he went on to list those sincs. A common theme in the Bible is that God sends misfortunes to punish unrighteous nations. Ever since the 'City of God' we have a more sophisticated understanding of how God works in history, but that older view has never gone away. John Brown prayed for a civil war to wash away the guilt of slavery, how is what the good Reverend said any more 'hateful' than that? A prominent Catholic bishop in Mexico said after 9/11 that, more or less, the U.S. was sowing what it had reaped- was he 'hateful' too?

Posted by Hector | March 16, 2008 9:47 AM

Ever wonder where the word "jeremiad" came from?

Posted by Rod Blaine | March 16, 2008 8:17 PM

"And let's be clear what he was saying here. He wasn't calling on God to damn America just for the hell of it. He was calling for the judgment of God on America for its manifest sins, and he went on to list those sincs. A common theme in the Bible is that God sends misfortunes to punish unrighteous nations."

Hector,

That is an excellent point you are making. Moreover, it has been noted that Thomas Jefferson feared for America's future, so long as it remained a nation that supported slavery. While Jefferson did not belong to any formal organized Christian denomination, and his beliefs bordered on Deism, he nevertheless believed that God was a just god, and that he would punish America for its sin of slavery.(This was coming from a man who owned slaves himself.)

Posted by eltoro | March 16, 2008 9:03 PM

And let's be clear what he was saying here. He wasn't calling on God to damn America just for the hell of it. He was calling for the judgment of God on America for its manifest sins, and he went on to list those sincs. A common theme in the Bible is that God sends misfortunes to punish unrighteous nations. Ever since the 'City of God' we have a more sophisticated understanding of how God works in history, but that older view has never gone away. John Brown prayed for a civil war to wash away the guilt of slavery, how is what the good Reverend said any more 'hateful' than that? A prominent Catholic bishop in Mexico said after 9/11 that, more or less, the U.S. was sowing what it had reaped- was he 'hateful' too?

You have a point, and for my part, that is not what I found most objectionable about Wright's remarks. To the extent that I do object, it is more for its context in a milieu of paranoia and racialized resentment than for its content, which is in a tradition going back to the Old Testament prophets. Still, good luck trying to sell that to the American electorate. Americolatry is America's favorite heresy. As for Wright's statements about America (American white people, that is) inventing AIDS to kill blacks, or his reference to US of KKK A, they show the man is a dangerous, paranoid demagogue, and since Obama's denials of knowledge of Wright's ouevre are incredible, it calls into question Obama's true beliefs and his honesty.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | March 17, 2008 10:26 AM

Cyrus,

The claim that the US government invented AIDS is of course false and slanderous. If I recall correctly it was made up by some East German scientists in the 1980s. I suspect the Reverend is repeating it out of ignorance, not malice. Nevertheless it is a fact that around the time that this rumor was made up, the South African regime (which was a tactical ally of the US and which had some American scientists on its payrolls) was trying to invent diseases that would selectively kill black people, and did manage to engineer an anthrax epidemic in Zimbabwe as well as testing drugs on helpless Black prisoners. So you can see why this rumor touches a chord with some black people, as false as it is.

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

There were also, IIRC, documented examples of using black Americans as guinea pigs for vaccines in Alabama in the 1940s. Clinton, I think, apologised for it in 1996 or '97.

Posted by Rod Blaine | March 17, 2008 3:36 PM