So, You Want a Theocracy Now?
Wright's expressed reason for speaking out (and possibly wrecking Obama's presidential bid) is that he feels he must defend the Black church from criticism. Right here is the trouble with churches -- they don't like to be criticized, and they don't think they should be criticized. If you criticize them, they tell you you are being disrespectful and sacreligious. It is not that the Pastor disagrees with you, it is that God disagrees with you and therefore you must be punished. Somehow, people are always more offended when they are told that God Himself is not on their side.
Isn't it interesting that there are so many churches in America who all more or less disagree with one another? Hagee hates and fears Catholics. Falwell hoped to see the end of public schools. Robertson declared that "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians." Wright may be more correct about the history of Americans and black people in America than any of these pastors, but he is more like them than he is unlike them in that he sees attacks on him as attacks on the Black church, and he feels obliged to defend it. If Obama is required to repudiate Wright, then why isn't McCain required to repudiate Hagee? Well, only for this reason -- Hagee controls more votes. The fact of the matter is, all of the candidates have to pander to constituents who will not admit that in the last 70 years -- to say the least -- US policy has done a great deal of harm around the world and that that harm has aroused hatred and vengefulness toward the US. A candidate who won't admit or doesn't know that is the one who can get elected, but a president who can't admit or doesn't know that will continue to course of American destruction that Bush and Cheney have sent us down. Bush didn't know "why they hate us". Cheney did know, but didn't care.
The crossroads we find ourselves at was an inevitable one. I always knew some preacher would get some president or some presidential aspirant into big trouble. I naively hoped that it would be a rightwinger and his hate-spewing Robertson/Falwell power mongering hypocrite. I should have known it would someone who actually knows something about American history. But Obama wouldn't have this problem if Americans didn't have the idea that their president has to be a man of faith. If Americans thought that the president just had to be an intelligent and knowledgeable person, a competent policy wonk and an inspiring public speaker, Obama would be home free. But as an atheist, or an agnostic, or even someone who kept his beliefs to himself, Obama would have never had a chance. He could be ten times as smart and well-prepared as George W. Bush, but he would never get the votes. So, what Obama has been honest about his religious journey in a way that NO OTHER CANDIDATE HAS, and now even Bob Herbert wants him to abase himself for it. I'm sure Clinton's and McCain's pastors are going to come under similar scrutiny (Ha!). They should, because maybe if they did, the American people (and the press) would wake up from this madness of making politics about religion.
Update: As a result of Obama's smartly-phrased repudiation of Rev. Wright, I call upon John McCain to repudiate, in similar terms and at similar length, his relationship with Rev. Hagee, and for Hillary Clinton to openly discuss and repudiate her relationship to her Capitol Hill prayer fellowship led by Doug Coe. Among other things, According to Mother Jones, "The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan." God's plan, according to them, seems to be "'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ". I, as a patriotic American, am at least as offended and frightened by anything Doug Coe and Sam Brownback are planning as I am by anything Rev. Wright is planning. Obama has repudiated Wright as forthrightly and gracefully as possible. Now I want the same from the others. The press must hold Clinton and McCain to the same standard as Obama. Hagee and Coe must go.
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
Great post Jane. But...
Most Americans believe we are locked in a war against grimey religious fanatics who want to enslave us to some quaint little god named Allah. So how are we going to win that war? Now our God of course is the real one, but that doesn't mean He'll let us win just because we're good looking and brush our teeth (look what He did to the Jews for 2,000 years!!). No, somehow we've got to stick a flag pin on our god and trick him into liking it. Nobody knows how to do that yet but electing an atheist is not on anybody's top 10 list of things to try. Resurrecting the belief that the sun goes around the earth is somewhere on most people's top 10 list, but not atheists..
Typical liberal thinking, blame society for your poor life choices. Obama wouldn't be having a problem if he hadn't decided to sit in the church where Wright was spewing hate for twenty pluse years. This was a chooice that Obama made, as he explined it, to gain entry into African American society in order to advance his political carreer. Chickens coming home to roost takes on a whole different meaning.
It's best not to listen to Believers about the nature of reality and politics.
Didn't John McCain choose to seek the endorsement of John Hagee? It's not as if Hagee forced it on him. McCain actively sought it out.
You can't have it both ways.
There's a great deal of possibility you are correct that a non-(or non-mainstream) religious person can't get elected POTUS. However, your assertion that Americans' thirst for a religious president is the cause for Obama's problems is asinine. Barack alone bears the responsibility for this ridiculous situation, in several ways.
Brilliant, as always. Thanks for the moments of clarity.
Dear Ms. Smiley,
Thanks for *Another* eloquent essay/post, that's why I heart ya.
That said, let me cut to the quick, believers and their "Faith" in *fate* is and shall remain the *BIG PROBLEM* for all of Humanity, their delusions and plausible denial is the direct cause for a cascade of irrational behavior that can only be considered a virus of the human psyche.
When their "Idolatry" supercedes conscience, allowing for rationalization of irrational actions, there *IS* a "BIG PROBLEM" ! Agape.
Most of our presidents have been lukewarm about religion.
Some of the most revered have been distinctly unreligious. Lincoln quoted the Bible but that was not unusual for the time. Reagan was not religious but the conservatives have projected that on him.
Let's see... what has religion done for our political leaders in the past 20 years? They have repudiated and ignored science and the scientific method; they have made hateful statements about anyone who does not follow their brand of religion; they have abused and misunderstood the teachings of Christ and Mohammed; they have glorified war and violence in the name of some higher power; and they have set back "civilization" about a thousand years. It is clear to me that anyone espousing a rigid belief in the "One True God" or "Savior" or "Creator" is a priori unqualified to be a political leader. As Ms. Hamsher notes, we need leaders with intelligence, compassion, energy, and a conscience. If they also believe in a religion, fine... just don't confuse the responsibility to govern wisely with the neurotic need to ask your God how to do that with every decision. My God would say, "That's YOUR job, not Mine. Get busy and don't bother Me!"
If God existed, he wouldn't be nearly as petty and stupid as religious idiots make him out to be. And he certainly wouldn't endorse Republicans.
It's best not to listen to atheists about the nature of God.
What G-d ???
It is always *best* to listen to those which know what's going on, especially outside of the world of phantasy and illusions.
A conscientious atheist should learn a lot about god, historically, philosophiclally, theologically, and cosmologically. It's always wise know you enemy.
Anyone who hangs out with superstitious - er, I mean 'religious' people deserves whatever misfortune shows up. People who believe nonsense tend to make odd decisions when push comes to shove.
Have you ever read the entire Bible from front to back? If not then I suggest you save your insults to those that at least are educated on the subject.
which one?
Excellent article. Very well said.
It's an obvious sign of decline that the Wright issue has taken center stage for so long. It's an obvious sign of decline when a nation has all too many people willing to put their conception of god above reason and rationality.
That said, I think Wright's conception of his god is superior to the nutcase fundamentalists on the right. HIs god damns America for slavery, genocide and discrimination. Their god damns America for the mere existence of gay people, liberals, feminists and the ACLU.
While disagreeing with both conceptions of divinity, I see Wright's as a god more worthy of respect. Falwell's, Dobson's and Hagee's god is actually and obviously quite crazy, sadistic and murderous, as he would, apparently, drown an entire city because they were thinking about holding a gay-pride parade (not to mention all of the genocide he commits in the bible). That same god apparently sent those airplanes into the Twin Towers because America actually includes gay people, liberals, feminists and the ACLU.
Wright's god is outraged by genocide, slavery and discrimination. The lunatic right's god is someone who actually embraces and promotes those things. Of course, they think he's always already justified, even when barbaric, vindictive, petty, or sadistic . . . which makes it worse, of course.
"HIs god damns America for slavery, genocide and discrimination. Their god damns America for the mere existence of gay people, liberals, feminists and the ACLU."
Excellent point (and post) Cuchulain.
Right-wing Christians don't like it when their world view is challenged and turned upside-down. Wouldn't this be an appropriate time for them to draw on their faith?
Gotcha bitches.
This is where the libs either don't get it or are grasping at anything in their obaminatio
You know this based on what? Seconds taken out of hundred of hours specifically chosen to make him look bad, and willfully interpreted by wingnut to believe whatever they want.
No matter who wins in November, all this emphasis on religion will be a thing of the past once the ballots are counted. It is all just a cheap-shot show, fanned by the media and the political opposition. None of these characters are mired in their religious beliefs. George Bush outright lied about his. Still does.
We have to find a way out of this nit-picking for no reason other than to smear. ALL of these candidates have shown themselves to be hypocrites to one degree or another.
The major culprit in giving any of these non-issues legs is the media. When they smell a small cut, they swarm like it's a real blood fest. They are absolutely shameless.
HuffPost's Pick
The demonization of Rev. Wright is misplaced. Very few of us are old enough to remember the notorious Father Coughlin who regularly took to the airwaves back in the 1930s to blame all of societys ills on the Jews. Coughlin singled out the Jews for his weekly tirades and enjoyed a radio audience that was estimated to total in the millions. This was before TV, Bill O'Reilly, and the euphemism "secular liberals." By any standard, Father Coughlin's rants were outrageous, indecent, and certainly un-Christian-like. But where was the outrage? If there was any outrage, it must have been drowned out by applause. Today, we have Rev. Wright railing against the historical injustices of white society towards Blacks. Unlike Father Coughlin, who regurgitated some of the oldest lies in history to make a point. The difference between then and now is simply the object of the tirade. The Jews, being everyone's favorite scapegoat, must have deserved Coughlin's wrath. But White Society, who has done so much for its Black brothers and sisters, takes umbrance at Rev. Wright's criticisms. Think about it......
"But Obama wouldn't have this problem if Americans didn't have the idea that their president has to be a man of faith."
A word of advice: It's not very attractive of you Obama supporters to be blaming this mess on the American people, and on religion. You had best quit whining and pointing fingers, and get to figuring out a way to help Obama to get his guy to shut up and go away until Nov 5.
Talk about a point going over your head.
In what way? She's blaming Obama's problems, which he brought on himself, and which he's been warned about for months, on Americans in general. And religion. Whining and blaming others for your mistakes is repellent. it seems to be typical of Obama supporters, who freak out their baby has to face some hard questions in an interview.
Pearls before swine, indeed.
"But as an atheist, or an agnostic, or even someone who kept his beliefs to himself, Obama would have never had a chance". I assume Ms. Smiley would also assert, neither would any other candidate. My hunch that she is wrong and if an attractive, smart competent religious skeptic did arise, as long as they could discuss and explain their views with humor and not come across as being arrogant about it, they might do very well.
for President? In America? You've got to be kidding. We are more religious than many third world countries. Half of America believes in Creationism. I'd love to see a Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins ticket, but America isn't ready (and never will be)
Not over 3% of the citizens of the United States have ANY idea of who Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins might be. Fewer than 1% have read a book authored by either of them. America is the land of Lawdy, Lawdy - and it will be at least a century before this nation catches up with Western Europe and divests itselt of institutionalized superstition - er, I mean religion.
Dawkins was not born is the US. These guys express their views with no humor and plenty of arrogance. Just the opposite of what a successful candidate must be. I think somebody who says that he doesn't accept any organized religion might make it. Someone who says that anyone who believes in God is a fool, won't.
But only if his God wears a flag pin, right?
Yeah, we all remember Robert Ingersoll's terrifically successful political career.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
