My last word on Wright/Obama

I really have nothing else to say about this. Perhaps, sometime, I’ll talk about my theological issues with what I’ve heard from Rev. Wright. Probably not, since I have better things to do. But, maybe …

I find no merit in the argument that a couple statements from Rev. Wright proves that he is an unforgivable racist, and therefore Obama’s association with him proves that he, too, is an unforgivable racist.

Nor do most conservatives.

Huh?

No, they don’t. You see, this kind of logic means that George W. Bush is a supporter of Saddam Hussein. Before you argue with me, I have photographic proof.

rummy-and-hussein.jpeg    Perhaps you’ve seen this picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. That’s Saddam Hussein, the thug-dictator of Iraq later executed for his activities. And that’s Donald Rumsfeld, whom George W. Bush named as his first Defense Secretary, shaking his hand. Obviously, that handshake shows that Rumsfeld was Hussein’s friend, and if Bush would nominate a friend of Saddam Hussein as Defense Secretary, then that means that President Bush is really a supporter of al-Qaeda, right (because, of course, we all know what a big supporter of al-Qaeda Hussein was)?

Come to think of it, what about George Bush’s brother Neil? Isn’t he a bit off? Between the Silverado Savings and Loan and his Asian prostitution involvement, I think that George Bush’s refusal to distance himself from his brother plainly means that he supports marital infidelity and prostitution.

Come to think of it, wasn’t Neil Bush touring with Sun Myung Moon? That must make George W. Bush a heretic, too.

Of course, Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, apparently had some business dealings with Nazi Germany!

Obviously, George W. Bush is a supporter of Nazis and al-Qaeda, and believes that married men should see Asian prostitutes!

Moving on … Mitt Romney said that Mormonism was the “faith of [his] fathers,” and he would not repudiate it. Of course, in the 1970’s the Church of Latter Day Saints was still viciously segregated. So, Romney is a racist? And every single person who endorsed or voted for him must be a racist, as well?
And speaking of Romney’s forefathers, do you know what Romney’s grandfather, did?

Of course, Romney’s father, George, claimed to have been brainwashed into supporting the war in Vietnam, didn’t he?

So, Mitt Romney obviously supports racism, polygamy, and believes that the military brainwashed his father.

Or, maybe, guilt by association is a weak argument. Maybe, just maybe, these people have records of their own, and we should look at those, not try to play “gotcha” based on what some associate has said.

For one thing, we seem to be out to malign the associates. George Romney, for example, wasn’t really suggesting some nefarious secret brainwashing exercise. He chose a poor word for what he was trying to say — that he bought into a propaganda campaign. But I could run with the words he said and make him sound like some kind of paranoid freak.

My wife and I last night played a game trying to make my church sound corrupt — off the top of my head, I could come up with quotes that make you think that my pastor is a raving liberal or even a horrible pervert. Knowing this, I’m not prepared to judge Rev. Jeremiah Wright as quickly as most people seem to be. I’m certainly not willing to make the leap, then, from condemning Jeremiah Wright to, then, condemning Barack Obama.

This is now two supportive posts for Obama. I’m pretty sure that that’s all I really have in me. I will not put a whole lot of effort into it. I have my reasons to oppose Barack Obama, but this isn’t one of them. All I want is honesty in the argument. I don’t think that this debate is being handled honestly, or even-handedly.

George Bush is not a Nazi. He’s not a supporter of Saddam Hussein. He doesn’t believe in Moonism, and I have no reason to believe that he endorses adultery or prostitution. Mitt Romney is not a racist. He doesn’t endorse polygamy. He’s not paranoid about government brainwashing.

I know these things because Mitt Romney and George Bush have records, in business and government. I can evaluate what they have actually said and done. I don’t need to rely on a few things said by associates.

It is my hope that we can move on to substance in this election, so that I can go back to attacking Barack Obama.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

17 Responses to “My last word on Wright/Obama”

  1. in2thefray Says:

    Welll I hope people learn more about Obama myself. The Wright issue shouldn’t be so easily discounted anymore than it should be a year long rallying cry. On Romney (yeah you didn’t see this coming) Teddy K made it a point to use the LDS / race thing in their one time contest. I wonder if teddy is coherent enough to remember that being an Obama supporter and all that.

  2. MJ "revoltingpawn" Says:

    wickle…

    Would have been a good post expect the part where you said Rev. Wright is a racist. Did you hear the whole sermon or only the sound bites from Fox News?

    Just because someone is mad about the racism against his people does not make him a racist himself.

    http://ideasandrevolution.net/2008/03/24/some-resources-for-the-truth-on-the-reverend-wright-controversy/

    George Bush is a Fascist (Nazi is the wrong term) not because of his associations but because of his polices.

  3. econ grad stud Says:

    Mr. Wright said the following:
    “A black theology believes that the black community is where Christ is as work. God, because He is the God of the oppressed, takes sides with the black people. He has an unqualified identification with the black peoples.

    Either God is for the black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressor or He is not. He cannot be both for us and for white people at the same time”

    That statement troubles me.

  4. Kingdom Advancer Says:

    Guilt by association is a weak argument, but it gets stronger and stronger the closer the association is. This man was Obama’s pastor for 20 years; he was/is still (?) an official part of Obama’s campaign; Obama called him his “spiritual mentor”; he was married by him; his daughters were baptized by him.

    Not all associations are equal.

    What bothers me even more is that so many in the church were standing up hooting and hollering during these rants. Now, I don’t need anybody to tell me that I don’t understand black churches. It’s not too hard to figure out that when you stand up and cheer somebody on, you agree with him. So, many of Obama’s fellow members shared Wright’s sentiments.

  5. MJ "revoltingpawn" Says:

    econ grad stud…

    Do you even understand the quote in your comment? He asking whether God is for black people and their fight or for whites who would oppress (racists) and not talking about all white people. Don’t take whites to be all inclusive or literal.

    Why are you not quoting John Hagge? His words really trouble me.

    Again listen to the whole sermon and don’t pick out one piece..

  6. wickle Says:

    MJ -

    I didn’t say that Wright is a racist. I said that I see no merit in the argument that he is.

    I don’t really know whether he is. And I don’t care that much, because no one is voting for Rev. Wright for President. I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is a racist because I find no evidence of it in his record.

    This, by the way, was also my point about being able to misrepresent my church if I tried hard enough.

    in2theFray - I’m not sure if Teddy K remembers what he drank for breakfast this morning, much less what he did or said in the previous Senate run. Actually, I think that I might count that as evidence in Romney’s favor … for the most part, anything that Ted Kennedy says is wrong.

    I didn’t talk about it much because I felt like the issue went away (as it should have), but I (yes, I) was sitting on a drafted post about Romney and racism … more or less the same grounds as I use here. He has his own record, and we can judge him by that.

    On a theological level, I agree with both Econ Grad Student and Kingdom Advancer … and this is the one place I’m worried about how I’m going to be taken. I don’t endorse Afrocentrism any more than I endorse Americentrism, each of which is a form of idolatry. The quote that Grad Student puts up does have God identifying people by race … which He doesn’t do.

    He might well side with the oppressed, but it doesn’t matter whether that oppressed person is white or black. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek.

  7. MJ "revoltingpawn" Says:

    wickle…

    Sorry misunderstood what you were trying to say in your post. Nice to see a “religious conservative” who is not jumping on the Wright is a racist bandwagon.

  8. Betsy Says:

    -

    Things take a slightly different perspective when viewed in the right context.

    Whether one agrees with Reverend Wright or not, it seems to me that he has been unfairly demonized to make a media controversy.

    Watch Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9-11 sermon in context on youtube and decide.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

    Jeremiah Wright’s God Damn America in context on Youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw

  9. PLJ Says:

    On a first examination I think you should be troubled by the statements “Either God is for the black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressor or He is not. He cannot be both for us and for white people at the same time”
    Any fair minded person would. But after listening to some of the other FULL sermons by Rev Wright, some of which I have found deeply moving I cannot believe that he meant the above statement to be taken literally. Dont forget that this is a church of a mainly White denomination, that there are white members of the church and that white preachers have also preached from the same pulpit. I confess to know nothing of “Black Liberation Theology” but considering my initial reaction of disappointment and outrage when I first saw the few seconds shown by the mainstream news to how I now feel having viewed the full sermon, I am certain that there is more to this than some racist pastor and a racist congregation. For example, in the sermon regarding 9/11 he says he is quoting former ambassodor to Iraq, Peck who it seems suggested that 9/11 was in response to violence perpetrated by America through their foreign policy, although the “chickens coming home to roost” was I believe something that Malcolm X said. Whether he believes this or not is not clear but he counters this with the statements that he asked God, “what should our response be”? and concludes that this should be a time for self examination. There is more to this than a few soundbites. I dont wish to patronise anyone but if you really did not know there was so much jumping and shouting in Black churches, dont beat yourself up about it, but dont write it off as mindless shouting. I dont know know what goes on in a Sikh temple for example but I would not simply presume that things are what my cultural biases suggest that they should be.

  10. in2thefray Says:

    Is there any degree of racism in any type of separatism ?

  11. Royal Cardon Says:

    You are mistaken. The LDS church has never been segregated. All races have always been welcome to come to our meetings from the very beginning. When the church was very new (only 2 or 3 years old) Joseph Smith invited free men of color to join in but the church was weak and small and the persecution was so great that the governor of Missouri issued an extermination order which resulted in the members being driven out of the state. Joseph Smith desided (we believe under inspiration from the Lord) to delay bringing the gospel to the blacks until the Church was stronger. He said that someday the church would offer them the priesthood.
    However a few blacks did go west with the church in the 1840’s and were always integrated into the community and fully fellowshipped. The church has been missunderstood regading this. We have never been anti black nor have we ever segregated our members. I knew black members who joined the church before the priesthood was available to them and they attended priesthood meetings on a regular basis and were fellowshipped like everyone else. they knew that someday they would be ordained to the priesthood and they seemed to understand. It is a complex world we live in and it is not so simple to fly against the bigitry of the 1830’s while organizing a church that is as different as the LDS.

    You may not agree with our beliefs but you should be proud that like all other religions in the USA we have the freedom to believe what they want. Take a look at some of the good we have done and appreciate the we only mean well.

  12. wickle Says:

    Royal Cardon -

    Your own comment points out that blacks were not allowed into the priesthood. No misunderstanding, therefore.

    I’ll leave the rest of your comment alone since it’s way off-topic.

  13. maidensong Says:

    Good blog Wickle,
    I too have been trying to encourage my readers to see the Wright debacle for the red herring that the media have made him.

    I don’t know how much fuel is left in that train, but it seems now the new line of attack is going to be that the church is pro-palestine /anti israel, which of course now means that Obama is an anti semite… *rolling eyes*

    I can’t wait till we can get back to the REAL issues.

    And I’m still trying to figure out who let this horse out of the stable in the first place. McCain’s people, or Hillary’s people? I know the MSM did not volunteer themselves for this hatchet job

  14. kip Says:

    You know, the Reverend’s words have been available for scrutiny even before Barack decided to run. Barack distanced himself from some of the more controversial rhetoric, but not the man way back then. No problem.
    But when the videos of Wright popped up, it was a whole different story. If the same words were spoken in a contemplative fashion by some college professor during a lecture, there’d be no story here at all.

  15. econ grad stud Says:

    Obama is running as a politician who’s above scandal or divisiveness. His policies aren’t the focus of his campaign, his character and his personal story are.

    This Wright fiasco hurts Obama’s theme/story. If he was running on issues this wouldn’t be newsworthy. No one is dredging up Hillary’s embarrassing personal friends because she is running on the issues.

  16. wickle Says:

    Kip, you’re right.

    Back in October, I wrote about it in my “Working the Field” series.

    http://1truebeliever.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/working-the-field-part-x-obama/

  17. in2thefray Says:

    @ Kip & others. I don’t know. I’m thinking if Obama was tight with the professors that do indeed lecture on “Whiteness Studies” there would be some press.

Leave a Reply