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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Gerald,
90% of the world people believe exactly as does Rev. Wright. The attacks of 9-11were not based on envy of our freedoms. It is a shame that respected journalists do not support the rights of free speech, free establishment and exercise of religion, freedom of association.
Propaganda is unpatriotic. Illegal wars of aggression are war crimes. Generals Eisenhower and Mac Arthur as well as dozens of others did not support President Truman's actions.
It is too bad that the Pope is only now demanding an end to the killing in Iraq. He could have stopped the invasion if he had the courage of Rev. Wright.
FYI-the Pope did....the Pope asked for no war....
These issues are all open to serious discussion in legitimate academic and political circles. Should a candidate have to distance himself from such as spiritual adviser because the spiritual adviser questions the official dogma about war and issues of humanity It was when the churches looked the other way that Hitler got his most important political advantage.
The churches are looking the other way when it comes to Obama. It is like they are pushing him onto us. I have felt the Obama movement has been very evangelistic and has gotten the churches to sponser his claim to the presidency.
And I wonder - why hasn't this movement been more concerned about what real voters have to say and think?
I can make comparisons between Obama and Hitler - his use of his "voice of authority", his use of the new media, the influence of the internet users, the megachurch rallies. I am concerned with his brainwashing capacities.
This is such a non-issue - all these preachers and what they say affecting the politicians who go to their church.
Here's my view: All the candidates believe some kind of religious supernatural world view. Or at least pander to believing it because to not is somehow political suicide in this country. That places them all on equal footing for me, as ANY religious beliefs (to me) show a minor divorce from scientific thinking, rational thought, and reality. This isn't to insult the faithful - it is merely pointing out that you cannot prove any of the beliefs of religion, yet these beliefs are often stated as the "most deeply held" and how these politicians "shape their decisions / life / view of the world."
As an atheist, that scares the heck out of me.
That aside - all religious speakers spout nonsensical sayings. Religion is full of items that have to be taken on faith, not proof. ANYTHING a religious figure says in a sermon should have ZERO EFFECT on our political process. Separation of Church and State. END OF DISCUSSION.
---
One last little note -
While no one "deserves to die", the USA is not blameless for the hatred that some of the world directs our way. Our support of Israel, our activities in the Persian Gulf, our defense of Saudi Arabia - basically all of our "missions" in the Middle East are, at least in part, responsible for the planes slamming into the towers.
Is it the USA's fault? No, its the hi-jackers and their masterminds fault.
Did those people who died deserve to die? Of course not!
But in our patriotic zeal, we have to be careful to not over-simplify things. Our actions as a nation have repercussions. Our policies regarding the Middle East have the result of fueling anti-American sentiment and giving terrorist recruiters something to use as a tool.
"All the candidates believe some kind of religious supernatural world view." ???
I disagree with your term "supernatural". All religion is NOT about the supernatural, but rather is concerned with spirituality and morality.
Barack Obama says every day he "prays to Jesus". This bothers me because it sounds too much like GW Bush.
But I can relate to Barack when he talks about "the constellation of behaviors that express our mutual regard for one another, HONESTY, FAIRNESS, HUMILITY, KINDNESS, COURTESY, COMPASSION".
There is such a huge difference between obama and bush, I can't even begin. But the huge difference between them is Obama does not bring his religion to his job. He believes in separation of church and state.
You write, "He said, in part...." That seems to be the essence of the problem. What did Reverend Wright say in full? I've yet to see this truly addressed in any of the media. What was the name of the sermon? What was the whole sermon about. What was the spiritual question addressed by the sermon as a whole? With your position as a reporter, I would like you to find and report the answers to these questions.
How can we evaluate the congregation's response to the few sentences reported without knowing what words came before them? In context of the whole sermon, perhaps the words are not so "wildly controvers
WebForce1,
I support Obama (tho I was for Edwards) but would vote for Hillary if I have to. No contest w/ John McCain. We have to get out of Iraq. Look what it is doing to the economy. We cannot keep printing money-- it is worthless! The subprime mess would not be so destabilizing if we weren't how many trillions in debt? Our country is just going to collapse because of Iraq.
OTOH, I know plenty of Dems who will NOT vote for Hillary if Obama does not get it. Which is scary. The Supreme Court with be Republican right wing.
The Dems HAVE to prevail.
Maybe we have to start a "draft Edwards" movement or something.
As for Obama, would make me happy if he said he wasn't as church going as he'd proclaimed. Religious folks tend to be dangerous: look at Geo. W.... tho his definition of being a Christian is very different from most people's.
Very intelligent post by WebForce. We have to prevail and we will prevail.
Trying to keep that in some historical perspective, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 911 on lesbians, the ACLU, the People for the American Way, and abortion on 9/13. Other preachers blamed it on similarly absurd spiritual forces. Statements like that look a lot worse now than they did back then. For the white public who never go to black churches, the tone of that preaching is also kind of a shock, while similar statements made by white preachers just causes us to roll our eyes, and go, "Here we go again...".
In short, I don't think it's reasonable to assume there should have been some kind of Obama-led response. Wright was speaking his mind, and while most people wouldn't agree with that, he has a right to say it.
would be an effective piece for barack to put together clips of all those outlandish things said by the evangelical leaders in times of crisis (and beyond). barack needs to prepare to face the evangelicals in the general. they will be mobilized by this if it's not properly put to bed. (i've heard many of them voted for hillary in the primaries, particularly in texas.)
I am a fan Mr. Posner but gravely disappointed by this piece.
I have read your books and many of your articles. You are touted for the power and skill of your 'investigative' journalism. But I cannot help but wonder, before you decided to trash Sen. Obama (and make no mistake that is what you did) if you ever stopped to consider that there maybe a different perspective that cannot be understood by simplistically cutting out the pieces of a story or event absent of its context? When you write " I desperately want to believe him" did it occur to you that it is YOUR beliefs that make that impossible?
Has it occurred to you yet that you may be demanding that Sen. Obama play the same game like 'one of them' that you profess to not want? Is it really about you wanting him to "tell it like it is" which you profess to admire about him or is it about telling you what you and everyone else wants to hear or already believes, each according to your own personal egocentric, ethnocentric or political view of events and Rev. Wright in particular?
For example, on the issue of 9/11 you decided that Rev. Wright was implying that we 'deserved it' which would indeed make his comments seem very incendiary though he never said that.
Now if I were to say, 'how can the Government be surprised by an attack when they, the CIA or Corporations go into other countries and without our knowledge or consent as citizens, commit unjust and disrespectful acts against the inhabitants of that country? I don't think a lot of people would suggest that I was saying we deserved the attack, so why would you suggest that Rev. Wright's comment suggested we deserved the attacks of 9/11 because he is essentially saying the same thing I did.
Did it ever occur to you that the assumptions you make about what people MUST have done or how they MUST have reacted might be wrong?
Did it occur to you that making assumptions about another culture, their faith and how they experience that faith might be problematic, possibly even arrogance?
I am a 59 yr. old white woman, well educated, background in journalism, publishing and marketing.
Not many people would suggest this grandmother was radical by any standard.
So the question is why don't I find Rev. Wrights remarks about 9/11 alarming or radical? But you do?
The difference between what you and I see and hear, is that I am passionate about social justice.
As a consequence I am well versed on our countries acts both home and abroad as it relates to issues of social justice. I know what the Government, Military and CIA do in our name but without our consent and often without our knowledge. I know why many have learned to hate us. I know why our citizens are not safe in parts of the world.
Further, I watched, as did many others, as the acts against us as a Country got closer and closer to home. Any reasonable person could see it coming in a steady march to our door; Lebanon, the bombing of the Cole, the African Embassy and more. It was inevitable that sooner or later, the hatred we had inflamed in the Middle East, South-East Asia, Latin America and Africa would be brought home to us. Is that suggesting we deserved it or that the Government should have known?
Rev. Wright termed it 'the chickens coming home to roost."
Now the difference between me and Senator Obama and others of Rev. Wright's congregation is that I don't live my passion for social justice as a tenant of my religious faith but they do!
Their Christian Faith treats the issue of social justice as an arm of the cross, a Christian obligation! They are social activists as a matter of faith! They are well educated on issues of social justice, they act on those issues within their communities, their families and abroad.
They believe in the wisdom of Martin Luther King when he said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." They stand up and speak out, as a matter of faith.
When you have been a part of social justice issues for a large part of your life, when you know what is happening both at home and around the world, when you have fought to remedy social injustice why would anyone in that congregation or myself for that matter as a social justice activist think for a moment that there was anything exceptional about what Rev. Wright said a few days after 9/11?
This is an on going conversation that some of us have been having for 30 years, so that does not strike us as radical, in fact it would seem to state the obvious.
But you still think that if Sen. Obama was not there someone would have gotten on the phone and said "oh my gosh, did you hear what Rev. Wright said?"
As I watched the horror of 9/11 play out on my TV screen, I wept knowing it was all about 'getting even' and average Americans had no idea why.
You see Mr. Posner we all speak from our passion; our experience and what we know or believe to be the truth.
You Mr. Posner extolled President Bush's speech to the American people on 9/11 comparing him to Roosevelt and Churchill," he (Bush) rallied a country's spirit, he had the courage to tell us the bad news that the upcoming battle would be neither swift nor easy, and he declared that those who would destroy our culture and values would not prevail. You even went so far as to declare Bush "the leader America needs" suggesting that neither Clinton nor Gore could have filled those shoes.
Now I don't hold that against you and I understand that you have since declared that an error of judgment or what ever. That's not my issue.
My issue is to show you that when you see the world within the context of a knowledge based passion it is like an on going conversation, we react differently to what people say, we see what they are saying in a whole different light.
How I and I am sure many others, saw Mr. Bush's comments were different than yours. I saw them as dishonest and misleading so they made me very apprehensive as to what might be coming.
As you wrote; "he declared that those who would destroy our culture and values would not prevail"?
Now you are a very intelligent man Mr. Posner but are you telling me that on 9/11 you believed that the terrorists who flew those planes into NY did it in an effort to destroy our culture and values?
Did you really believe that as Bush likes to say, "they hate democracy and freedom' or were obsessed with the lure of a tryst with 72 virgins in heaven?
Yes, they want to hurt us. Yes, they hate us, now even more!
But they have given very specific reasons why?
Unlike the people who have Rev. Wright as their pastor, a good many Americans have no idea why?
How ironic in view of your column that the lesson to be learned is that each of us must take great care and responsibility for the kind of people we chose to run our Government. Each of us must demand more of our Government and speak up when it is not right, or leading us into danger.
Sadly, I think the one man that could offer us that kind of leadership for the first time in over 30 years may fail in his candidacy because of race baiting, and those who would hold him responsible by association based on their view of another man's words, a culture they don't understand, and a Christian belief that makes social justice an act of faith.
And in the midst of all this contrived drama around Sen. Obama's pastor and how some how he is responsible for him, what are we living in and what does our future hold?
To that Mr. Posner I give you the last words: Your address to President Bush and his legacy;
"You have almost single-handedly set the country decades back in its relations with its allies, increased the dislike and hatred of America worldwide, squandered hundreds of billions of dollars that will shackle future American generations to a sea of debt, wasted the lives of thousands of young American boy and girls in a dead-end war, and made, by your actions, the world a much less safe place than it was before 9.11."
Excellent post, charley0008.
Thank you Charley0008 for that wonderful post.
Gerald,
As another Obama supporter, you ask a fair question -- how could Obama have not heard of the 9/11 controversial statements by Wright. In this question, you make the assumption that these would be considered controversial statements by anyone and would have to have been discussed at length. But I wonder if that's actually true. I am white, but I'm hearing about the fact that there are two Americas -- and that the perspective of each is very different.
It seems that Wright was saying that America has done a lot of hate ourselves in the world and our foreign policy is such that we inflame more anger at the US than we realize. There's nothing wrong with saying that in my opinion, but it was communicated in a very inflammatory and hateful way. Is it possible that a church membership that is used to the fire and brimstone type of service, disregards the fire for the message and doesn't see it as controversial? I wasn't there, so I don't know, but it's just something that I wonder about.
No, the Rev Wright's statements, in the context of immediately after 9/11 and Bin Ladin's claim that he did 9/11 BECAUSE of America's medling in Muslim countries, are not over the top.
(and we have been doing that since they discovered oil)
It is only the republican racists that are objecting to the Rev. Wright's comments..
Most Americans realize that there are consequences for our foreign policy.... we have only bombed black, yellow and brown nations..
Here in American, Blacks are still arrested for driving while black.
Blacks are underrepresented in the entire spectrum of our decision making. They are the most likely to be arrested, sentenced, and imprisoned. They are the most unlikely to be promoted. They are under-employed and more unemployed, and a significant number of the poorest in excess of their ratio.
This is not an accident.
How DARE we opine on how a black preacher gets the black and poor of his congregation to understand and accept and what happens to them.
This is as racist as it gets, and every pundit, every reporter, every news caster, every network that has played only the few seconds of 40 years of preaching and commented has demonstrated the worst kind of racism.
For goodness sakes - we bombed Germany.
Dutchess2, I'm on your side and agreeing with you. Maybe I didn't articulate my viewpoint very clearly. What I was saying is that maybe it's because Wrights ideas were NOT that controversial is why Obama didn't hear talk of it.
I think the thing that everyone that defends Obama here fails to realize is that they can forgive him all they want (heck, I personally don't find Wright that offensive, nor do I believe that Obama should be judged by his association with Wright) but their opinion isn't the only one that counts. Unfortunately most people wouldn't forgive him for something like Wright. The only "truth" that matters is the truth that voters believe. Unfortunately, I feel that most American's won't take time to take into account the context and historical and cultural nuances behind Wright's statements or search out ones that are less offensive and they will simply judge Wright and Obama based on their own often misinformed opinions. People on the HuffPo and then Daily Kos can defend him and whine that this isn't the way that politics should be. I agree, but alas, that is the way it is and while I hope Obama makes serious changes to our electoral and nomination systems if he does become president, if he doesn't shape up soon, he is going to get spanked by Mccain i the general.
I'm confused about what public accounting Posner is saying that Obama hasn't done. Did he not read Obama's Op Ed on the HuffReport? What about the press conference Obama called to talk about Wright and Rezco?
I'm an Obama supported too and like most Obama supporters (including Posner) I'm not blind. I know Obama has the countries best interest at heart. Unfortunately, most people (including ones that Obama has come in contact with) have their own interest at heart. But you see I believe in Obama, not the people that have used him. He can't control his supporters any more than Clinton claims she can't control hers. Difference? Obama rejects and denounces!
Hi Gerald! I wrote two diaries at DailyKos that might help you. Please take a look whenever you have a chance.
http://www
and
http://www
I absolutely agree with this post. If Obama is going to heal this country, then looking to Rev. Wright for "spiritual guidance" is not the way to do it. I say this as a huge Obama supporter.
This is the problem with all politicians trying to "Out-Christian" the other candidate. I yearn for the day when somebody has the guts to say, "We have separation of church and state in this country and it's none of your damned business what I think about this" or, better still, "You're not electing a Pope. You're electing a president. Grow up."
Bear Stearns had a run on it this week, nearly 4000 dead in Iraq, $12B a month to Iraq, the PENTAGON, the PENTAGON for goodness sakes, cannot find any credible basis for GWB's claims of WMD or link to Al Quaeda - and you're worried about an old tape of a fired up African American Baptist minister talking about 9 / 11 ? Give me a break!
The Clinton patrol is out here's the problem you have the NUTTY REV didn't really say anything all that bad so why would anyone tell Obama about it. He wouldn't have been aware until some GOP/CLINTON muckraker had gone through all the tapes to find stuff to paint him as some crazy unpatriotic racist. See the problem give it up the Rev is nuts but so are a lot of people.
Ok, first of all, there has been absolutely no connection between the Clinton campaign and the Reverend Wright leaks. This seems to have Fox News written all over it.
I am willing to accept that by some kind of miracle Obama, a regular churchgoer, could have missed all the potentially offensive statements and that as you said Wright's statements wouldn't be perceived as negatively in the context of his church (that argument is pretty solid). But that still leaves two questions that Obama needs to answer.
1. If the reverend didn't say anything so bad why did Obama feel the need to condemn Wright's statements in his HuffPo piece?
2. If the statements were worth condemning now, why didn't he condemn them in February 2007 when he claims that he found out about him?
So either Obama is really lucky to have missed all of Rev. Wright's inflammatory sermons or he is too oblivious/arrogant to recognize that they could cause him harm in a general election. And either the reverend didn't say anything bad and Obama is casting him off for political reasons or the reverend did say offensive things and Obama kept Wright close to his campaign anyways.
Either choice is distressing as someone who wants a Democrat elected to the presidency. After August, when the Democrats finally have a nominee, if its Obama, I am going to to put all my efforts into getting him elected, but just know that if this story had broke in October, it could have completely destroyed Obama's chances at winning (white suburban voters aren't as forgiving or understanding about statements like Rev. Wrights, even if they are Democrats). We better hope that he doesn't have another thing like this just waiting in the wings to blow up, because the Republicans will use it to tear him apart so fast it will make Hillary Cinton look like a kindly old grandmother.
3 ODD OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE REV. WRIGHT CONTROVERSY:
1. Wish a major network would hire a public opinion research group to design a scientifically sound study that compares responses to the words in the Wright tapes as delivered by the Rev. Wright (or similar black preacher) to those same words delivered by a traditional Protestant and Catholic pastor. I wonder if much of the negative reaction to Wright is more about his style than the content.
2. If you can look beyond the provocative language, Wright isn't sanctioning the Trade Center bombing. He's raising legitimate questions the 911 Commission should have addressed: To what extent has American foreign policy contributed to anti-Americanism and radicalization in the Arab World? Like Wright, former President Carter was branded an anti-Semite and a bigot when he used "apartheid" to describe what he saw as "the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military." Yet, many scholars credit Carter with raising legitimate questions about treatment of the Palestinians as an obstacle to peace.
3. Is Obama being held to a different "guilt by association" standard? When the extremist, anti-Catholic pastor John Hagee announced his support for McCain (which he accepted), did any news organization or right wing radio program buy and repeatedly air any of the tapes available throught the ministry's 40-plus page catalogue? Why wasn't Mike Huckabee -- who once advocated isolating AIDS victims and labeled gays as aberrant, unnatural, sinful, and a public health danger -- pressured to release tapes of his sermons when he was a Baptist preacher in Arkansas? Of what about running tapes of Pat Robertson when he endorsed the pro-choice, pro-gay rights Giuliani?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
