Reverend Wright and Barack

I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.

I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.

Guilt by association is totally unwarranted. Barack is not responsible for Wright's views. However, how he responds to those views -- and whether he is being straight with us, the voters -- is critical as to whether he should lead our country.

The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.

Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.

A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.

There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.

If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.

Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."

But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.

And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.

Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.

Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?

Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.

Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection

Comments

[ronwilson4u]

As followers of Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit, true Christians say and pray “God Bless America,” and many are now saying and praying “God Please Help the US.” However, the Holy Spirit of God would never inspire a true follower of Jesus Christ to say or pray “God Damn American” in any context, much less as part of a taped public sermon. Holy Scriptures say to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Reverend Wright obviously has a fiery spirit that is condemning at times, particuarly when he curses our nation in public sermons and says spooky things like "your pegions are coming home to roost." It is certaintly not Christ-like or characteristic of the Holy Spirit. Sentor Obama apparently agrees with Reverend Wright in spirit, though he does not say “God Damn America.” However, most of his life he has trusted and tollerated this particular pastor, which is almost scary. Although Reverend Wright is retiring, he will remain as Senior Pastor, and his replacement essentially agrees with him in spirit and truth. Senator Obama must agree with him, at least in spirit. There is reason to not trust the spirit in which Reverend Wright made such remarks, and so there is reason to question the spirit leading the youthfull Senator Obama as a professed Christian and prospective president of our nation. May God’s Holy Spirit be our guide. Hope Page: http://itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com

[mouselion]

I stand corrected on Benjamin Franklin being antisemitic:

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/print.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Franklin_Prophecy

http://www.fi.edu/franklin/birthday/faq.html#36

[mouselion]

Lesson learned: don't post comments after stumbling right of bed -- have a cup of coffee first!.

[mouselion]

If Benjamin Franklin were alive today, he would be serious political liability to an presidential campaigner. He was anti-semitic, making a case for not allowing Jews to immigrate to the U.S.

Yet, he is considered to be a founding father of this country, someone from whom generation after generation of Americans have drawn inspiration.

Compared to the words of Reverend Wright, Ben Franklin's were extremely venomous and divisive. If he were alive, having the same positions that he espoused in the 18th century, no politician would be able to be near this man.

Now take the words of the sermon, "Audacity of Hope". There is no hate, and in fact, the sermon itself does reflect the motivation of Obama's campaign. The message is one that anyone in the world can draw inspiration from to face the challenges of today's world of terrorism, war, economic uncertainty and pestilence.

I had to get out of bed to this comment -- it seems to me, herein lies the hypocrisy of castigating Obama for his pastor's every word.

[JumpyJack]

I think Barack's membership in the church motivated him towards his beliefs and his campaign goals. He surely knew about Wright's views, even if he did not hear those particular sermons. But at the same time he knew that Wright was essentially a good person, who happened to still have a lot of hate towards white people for their injustices in the 70's. Because Barack himself could cooperate with whites quite well, and he undoubtedly also knew good white people who hated or were afraid of blacks, he must have felt sorry for all of those people, black and white, who were good but had in them so much racism, which is in modern times really unnecessary and unjustified. All of those people could get along well, if it wasn't for some decades old divisions. So I think that's why he has decided to try to bring people together.

As about why he wasn't "brutally honest" about it and rather chose to deny knowledge about those sermons, I think it's pretty clear. This is politics. As soon as he would have said "Yes, I heard those statements, but.....", the first part of the sentence would have made all the headlines, while his later explanation would have been largely (intentionally) ignored, no matter how good and justified.

I do think, though, that Wright generally did not preach hate, racism and anti-Americanism. Even his "top" statements were more or less legitimate critics of American politics. What he was saying (in a really inappropriate way) was that it's incorrect to treat black people unfairly and that it's incorrect by the US to impose its views over the rest of the world, disrespect environmental agreements, and even invade foreign countries out of it's own (or its government's) self-interest. Noam Chomsky and other prominent intellectuals have been saying that for decades, and it's also how much of the outside world sees the US - as a very arogant and aggressive country.

The problem is not so much those statements being anti-American. They're not, and they're really quite legitimate. The problem is that in the US patriotism is valued higher than everything else. You may criticize the government as much as you like, but and as soon as you say something which sounds like a critique of the great country itself, you're toast, even if you merely criticize the decisions made by the government. If Wright had said, for example, "God damn the Bush administration", he would have probably been applauded by 70% of the American public :)

[DrSpecter]

I am disturbed by Rev Wright's post-9/11 comments, and disagree with the idea that "we" deserved it. I do not think of the tragic killing of nearly 3,000 people as anything abstract. It was just a nauseatingly depressing tragedy.

I do not find Wright's sermon on the subject as disturbing as watching George W Bush stand in a chapel not a week later and announce that we were engaging in a 'crusade to stamp out evil'. The "war on terror" was at its outset a war without borders or any clear indicators of victory or defeat. It was a war that was designed to be endless.

Through tortured logic, it lead us into Iraq as a form of vengeance. And not to be on board was a sign of being unpatriotic, which was a form of treason in that age of little plastic flags. Since then, the place America held in the world has eroded out from under us. And in ways both obvious and subtle, it has been as a reaction to our own act of mass-psychosis.

The shock of Wright's sermon was relatively petty and short-lived. And I still believe Obama is our best bet for a relatively sane future.

[LeoMarvin]

It seems you've capitulated to the right wing's model of the Church as a vehicle for political indoctrination. That's not the way I was raised, and until twenty or thirty years ago that would have seemed a strange notion to most Americans (see Frank Schaeffer's post today on this site). Churches exist for religion, not politics. Let's assume Barack knew his preacher was a wild-eyed radical. Does that mean Wright couldn't have been his spiritual mentor, while Barack steadfastly disagreed with and rejected his politics?

I take Barack at his word that he didn't learn about these comments until 2007. Could that mean, as you suggest, that he must have taken for granted how radical Wright was for such comments not to have stood out sufficiently to come to his attention? Maybe. Sure. Why not? So what? One can take spiritual guidance without approving of the guide's politics, and vice versa. Some of our most basic freedoms depend on that distinction.

[iluvsam]

How is anything this "Reverend" said inconsistent with his already proven insanity? Anyone who believes in a sky-god to begin with shouldn't be taken seriously with regard to ANYTHING. Furthermore, anyone belonging to a "megachurch" shouldn't be President. Sorry. Talk about a lack of judgment. The next thing you know, we're all going to find out that Obama thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. UGH. Pathetic.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Reverend Wright's choice of the phrase about the chickens coming home to roost was very unfortunate: Malcolm X used those exact words after President Kennedy was assassinated, and the use of that phrase is what got him kicked out of the Nation of Islam. It seems Reverend Wright would have known this.

I don't know if "God damn America" is in the Bible, but I think there is something in there about knowing a tree by the fruit it bears. And if you listen to Obama's tone when he speaks, and to the words themselves, and look at his policies and his record, it's easy to tell that he is all about moderation, unity, and old-fashioned pragmatism. So whatever Obama was hearing while in church, it didn't rub off on his speaking style or his approach to government.

My theory: on a deeply personal level, Obama-- as a biracial American navigating the difficult obstacle course of self-awareness and self-expression which those of us who are not biracial in America may not understand-- wanted to feel a connection with the black community in Chicago, and at least once a week get in touch with that side of himself which (in a country where the white majority often pressures minorities to conform to one "color blind" standard) he would be in danger of losing as he successfully rose through the ranks of the white-dominated power structure.

[DinSea]

** CONSIDER THIS **
If you have been listening and paying attention to Obama's message, reading his history, and following his record, then step up a few branches in the tree to get a broad vantage point .... have you noticed that ...

Barack Obama has been surrounded by angry Black people in his life from time to time. I believe there is a good reason for this -- he is a tempering, bridge-building, anger diffusing, world uniting person. His friendship, and even just his presence, is a calming effect on people who have unresolved issues. His calm demeanor and brilliant intellect, not to mention his magnanimous and uncanny ability to read people, is a huge help in bringing people out of the past and into the future; i.e. out of the old divisive way of thinking, and into a new, "Philadelphia" - brotherly love, let's-work-together kind of mentality.

Sometimes angels go where there is turmoil so they can help bring the situation forward.

At any rate, this wild & crazy "uncle" pastor is from the old school of thinking - who can shut him up? It might be better to leave him alone and just move on, as Obama has.

[mikekev58]

His bridge building is not an obstacle to knowing and condemning Reverend Wright's comments, post 9/11 and otherwise.

[mikekev58]

I thought Malcom X became persona non grata because he began to question the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, not because of the comment on the Kennedy assassination. It's hard to believe that Elijah Muhammad would've had a problem with Malcom X's comments, given Elijah Muhammad's history. Malcom was later gunned down by members of the Nation of Islam loyal to Elijah Muhammad.
I think Malcom X also was referring to Kennedy's approval of a coup that resulted in the assassination of President Diem of Vietnam.
Insofar as 9/11 was in part a result of our policy of supporting Arab dictators and what appears to many in the Arab streets as an unquestioning pro-Israeli stance (not true, depending on which American administration was in power), then Wright has a point. But did thousands of people - Americans and foreign nationals - deserve to pay for American policy with their lives? No, of course not. Neither do any innocent persons who are victims of "collateral damage". But to equate what happened during WWII with 9/11 is just wrong.

[FairAndUnbalanced]

Let's face it all politicians play a game. There are hard choices to be made. For instance with respect to Obama's church, should he have quit the church a long time ago when it became clear that Wright was EXTREMELY politically incorrect? If he did, then he would lose influence in the community and would have labeled himself 'too establishment'. Perhaps he decided to stay because he privately agrees with Wright. Or perhaps he discounted the impact of Wright's rhetoric. With respect to this last hypothesis, it looks like this was a losing bet. We will see if Obama's words outweigh Wright's words.

[DietrichMoody]

Context, context, context. There is a difference between what Wright DID and what Wright SAID. What Rev Wright DID was nothing, what he SAID offended, but welcome to the loss of being able to speak your mind in America. And leave it to FOX News to tell us what is right and what is wrong. What the Republicans have done is monumentally problematic and requires us to think our way out. What Republicans and their Middle East vision, is far worse than anything Wright could ever say. And Clinton doesn't stand up to these THEOCRATS. It just shows how bad the Separation between Church and State - has gotten. And many in government want to turn these fights in the Middle East into a religious war.That is why for the Kristol's Hagee, Roves and their ilk, it is not treason for these types of people to out a American Spy, or throw people in jail without due process, and rip the Constitution a part because the Bible -old and new testament, is more important to these people than the Constitution. As a Historian you should understand the Drift this Country is headed in, and Mastering it will not be with petty request. Request that Obama talk about race, which he is going to do.


Believe me, this is an issue, I always suspected needed to be discussed, and in no way is a problem for a black candidate, nor does the media want it to be. I'd rather have reasonable talk about race - amidst someone else's. Thus, Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA


People need to start looking at the big picture and not be so arrogant. Beliefs like Wright exist more than you think - around the world - among blacks, white, among many in Europe and many in Asia and South America. America's economy is going down the tubes, we are loosing our moral leadership, and loosing our Brand Name, amidst the threat or terrorism everyday. America has been dealt a bad hand and we need to THINK our way out of this.


Given the context of what is happening to this Country, Marine deaths, false wars, Iran, Iraq, Economics, Wars, Inflation, Gas Prices, Republicans being controlled, actually controlled by Hagee types, the more infuriated people will become of the hypocrisy and although Rev. Wright is not a dominionist more light will shine on Hagee and his ilk that are controlling the Republican Party and many of this countries ill advised foreign policy. How ironic that it will taken an alleged anti-american speech to truly shine a light on the real anti americans such as Hagee, Kristol, and their ilk.

[mikekev58]

"Just words?"

[MrWinky]

Certainly, Obama has to act to quell some of this, but I think there are several important points to consider.

1. Are the statements of Wright any different from some of what we have heard from Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, etc. These have not served to bring down the Republicans who have supported them, but I do realize that perception may be different for not only the first black presidential candidate, but also one running in a party who looks on overzealous preachers and churches with a jaundiced eye. I think what is important is that there is at least some substance to Wright's claims. The Falwell/Robertson line is somewhere along the "America got what it deserves b/c it harbors gays, feminists, etc." - which is of course ludicrous. Wright is of the "America must realize that there are consequences for its actions abroad and its hate and intolerance at home." Even though there might be a pretty good argument against it being divine punishment, these issues of consequence have been brought up by many in the more Earlhly political realm.

2. People have different expectations from church. There is probably little doubt that to get anywhere as a potential black politician in Chicago, you would have to win the support of a church like Trinity. While I do not question the sincerity of Obama's faith, as the author wrote, there are also financial and networking advantages of certain churches. Trinity's size and community culture are advantages to its members, and I have little doubt that it is not taken into consideration by its prospective members and also used by the church in attracting them.

3. The baby with the bathwater. I am Catholic, and I enjoy being Catholic. As you can imagine, there are certainly conservative members among the congregation, but also a number of liberals too. I guess it just really depends on whether they take the New Testament or Old Testament to heart. Anyway, there are members who I admire for their commitment, their devotion and their piety. There are also members who from time to time and depending on the issue, say some pretty crazy stuff. Many times they are the same people. I am pretty sure this is not a unique experience in the church. In other words, there are people who you enjoy worship with and admire, but you would not vote for them to hold office. Anyone who has belonged to a church knows you can love someone and admire them for their service, but still disagree with them politically.

4. Context. I think Obama did a good job in painting the picture about Wright. Wright is a throw back to the original civil rights fighters. Men and women who saw the worst that this country had to offer concerning this nation's treatment of the black community. They still see it today, as many of the parishoners of Trinity are still living with the stigma and aftereffects of that treatment. It defines them, and you cannot simply flip a switch and become an entirely different person just for the sake of political correctness. They look at America with a jaundiced eye, suspicious of it motives and quick to deride its mistakes, but that is mainly b/c they were once at the receiving end of its prejudices. Obama very astutely pointed to the fact that while he does not agree with Wright's statements, he also recognizes that if it were not for people like Wright, there was no way he would be able to run for President, and so you cannot help to admire that or lightly put it aside. Obama also did well with the uncle analogy, in which he says Wright is like that uncle we all have, who we love and who is family, but every now and again says some zany stuff. Yeah, we all have that guy or gal in our family who we'd lay down in traffic for, but who constantly causes eyes to roll or giggles from time to time. My grandmother was a great lady, who was the glue that held our family together, and constantly worked to make sure all of us were taken care of. None of would have had it as good if she wasn't working constantly behind the scenes to make life better for us all, and she never once asked for thanks or recognition. She was also the lady who thought that the moon landing was faked, but ironically, thought things had never been the same since they brought the moon rocks back to Earth. Yeah, try and reconcile those two beliefs.

5. Paradoxes. Those who would seek to capitalize on this have two problems. If they push too hard, then they run the danger of being indicted by their crazies. Clinton has Penn and Ferraro, McCain has Hagee and Parsely. If you make too much of an issue that others speak to the character of the candidate, then you run the risk of having to answer for all those people around you. Also, when you have spent a considerable amount of time trying to make everyone believe he is Muslim, then it becomes hard to push that he is an angry black Christian and vice versa.

6. News cycle. I think a lot of people are right, and this will be a story until someone is caught screwing a watermelon, or Lohan goes back into rehab, or whatever the media hits on next. Those people who this will stick with are people who are looking for a reason not to vote for Obama in the first place, just the same as those who didn't vote for him b/c they thought he might be Muslim despite all evidence to the contrary. There is really no way to fight that, b/c if someone is convinced he was Muslim in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, how are you going to convince them that he is not a black militant?

[MNDADDY]

The biggest problem with this whole mess is the poor judgement obama used in not distancing himself much earlier from his church, or recognizing, long ago, that his affiliation with that church would cause serious harm to the democratic party in Fall 2008.

Now we probably are stuck with a candidate who who will be lucky to win his home state only. And that is if, dems are lucky.

[DietrichMoody]

March 17, 2008
Politico
Categories: Barack Obama

Obama plans major race speech tomorrow

Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now.

He was pressed there, as he has been at recent appearances, on statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

"I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," he said.

He added that he would "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example," he said.

He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips from recent Wright sermons.

"The caricature that’s being painted of him is not accurate," he said.

The speech could offer Obama an opportunity to move past the controversy over his pastor, and to turn the conversation to a topic he'd rather focus on: his Christian faith. But the speech also guarantees that the Wright story will continue to dominate political headlines.

Mitt Romney's attempt directly to address his Mormonism last year never decisively put the issue to rest for some voters.

Obama's schedule puts him in Philadelphia tomorrow.

[suigeneris]

>>"Barack is not responsible for Wright's views. However, how he responds to those views -- and whether he is being straight with us, the voters -- is critical as to whether he should lead our country."

[davg]

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki,
true

and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon,
true

...and we never batted an eye...
The average American welcomed the use of the bomb. All they knew about it was that it was a big bomb that would end the war, so they welcomed it. So true. But you've got to remember, this was after firebombing Tokyo which cost the lives of far more innocents. This was after the firebombings of London, Dresden and Hamburg. This was after the Hollocaust. So in the big picture, a couple bombs probably wasn't considerred to be that big a deal, especially when it was and is widely held that the alternative, a land invasion of Japan itself, would have been far far worse.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans
Given the strict definition of terrorism, true. We practiced terrorism by supporting the contras (Reagan's "freedom fighters"). And strictly speaking, more recently with "shock and awe". We bred and trained a terrorist that hit us with the 2nd most deadly terrorist attack on this nation (Timothy McVeigh). Do we conduct terrorism? DO we support it? Lacking a definition of it from the admisistration, we have to use the colloquial one. Here's the definition from dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Heck, stricktly speaking, Bush and Rove used it against us to win in 2004. Without some alternate definition to go by, all nations are terrorist nations at one time or another.

...and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

This is and will probably remain an unknown. In any case, you cannot emphatically say "false".

Remember right after 9-11 when, among all the other emotions and reactions, there was a question... "Why do they hate us"? Bush replied with an inflamitory piece of propaganda, something along the lines that these people were insane and that were hellbent on doing nothing less than destroying civilization itself. That really didn't answer the question or help at all. The question remained unanswered. I can't recall the source right now (it's been so many years), but some journalist went to the Middle East and posed that same question to a broad spectrum of people in various Islamic countries. Merchants, laborers, unemployed, professors, men, women, young, old, ... a broad spectrum was asked. After emphatically denouncing the events of 9-11 as being unislamic, you heard explanations as to why anti-Americanism was on the rise in the Middle East and growing. It all had to do with our foreign policy. The big players were are lopsided support for Isreal, our part in imposing sanctions on Iraq that resulted indirectly in the deaths of something like 1/2 million innocent children (malnutrition, disease, etc...), our presence in Rhiad (not that far from Mecca) in a large military base (the infadel's army in the holy land) and I think there were a few other points that escape me at this time.

Now, you can argue that we got the permission of the Saudi royalty to have our airbase, Saddam traded oil for guns instead of food, and that we are even handed and fair when it comes to Israel and it's neighbors. But the point is that this is not how it is seen by many disgruntled people in the Middle East. If you don't agree, then answer the question "Why do they hate us"? If you believe as I do that AlQueda was responsible, why do they say they attacked on 911 and other times? If Obama is being fingered because of something his minister said 7 years ago, why was not Ron Paul grilled on this? He articulates the case and defends it very well in debate.

Wright's delivery was over the top. And I don't believe God damms anyone. But was there truth in the core of what he said?