Why racist?
Perhaps it's only an issue of guilt by association but I fear it to be more. Obama has had the cultivation and nurturing of 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and his mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama's concept of American society and God must have been affected, and he must have assented or partook to have latched onto Wright for so long.
Wright preaches messages that:
- are anti-Caucasians (including Europeans);
- curse and vilify the United States;
- honor Louis Farrakhan (leader of the cult Nation of Islam);
- promote an imaginary black Jesus (not found in the Bible);
- follow the teachings of James H. Cone (a founding father of black liberation theology and a man who calls white men the devil); and
- perpetuate a delusion of government conspiracies (i.e. AIDS) against blacks.
The typical politician
Only in the past couple weeks has Obama sloughed off association with Trinity when it threatens his political image. He has played a careful balancing act: defusing speculation of being Muslim (named Hussein, childhood in Indonesia) by claiming Christianity ("I attend a church"), but now distancing himself from church to deflect suspicions of racism. Like the majority U.S. politicians, Obama must reassure the middle America of his Christian "faith"; yet the faith he has followed turns out to be different from Christianity. Either he is misinformed or he tosses faith about as another tool for or obstacle to his rise.
9 comments:
While I can understand where you're coming from on this, I don't think Obama shares all of the political or religious views of his former pastor (or church). It's not uncommon for Christian congregants to disagree with their local leaders (or even personal mentors) on various aspects of theology yet still remain a part of the same church. I know it's also quite possible to attend a church yet totally disavow its leader's actions and/or words (even if it requires a certain dissonance of self).
As Barack himself does not spout the same teaching or principles you're against in any public fashion -- repudiating and condemning such talk at every turn -- I'd tend to go with his important speech on race from Philadelphia on how to judge his basic acceptance of the people around him (whether his white grandma or the black pastor who supposedly led him to Christ). He may not agree with everything they believe, but they've still been a part of his life.
I am aware of his Philadelphia speech and it was eloquent. I also agree it is common for church congregants to not fully agree with their leader. If Obama attended church but disavows its views, what purpose does church serve him that drove him to continue going? If we are to regard his words as not "just words" then perhaps it is right for the media to jump on his comment regarding the racism of his white grandmother being that of a typical white person.
In the past few days I've become wary of Obama as I tried to understand him better. Someone with his education knows better than to spout Wright's corrosive remarks; so I don't think that precludes his personal opinions. Speaking of typical he is a typical politician to react only after public exposure of Wright's inflammatory words. Obama was not there for some of those times but the media speculates about the times he was there as Wright has not formed his delusions only recently.
To me it seems all we know are his words but not his intentions. I question his experience. His green-ness was painful apparent in the democratic debates when he said we should and he would have invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq.
The move by Obama that appears most politically motivated to me is his finally leaving the church in question only after all this business came to light (and after polls began to show voters were threatened by Wright's comments). Yet even this change of heart seems understandable once you acknowledge Obama's reported private anger at Wright's most recent media blitz recommitting to his wacky views while taking jabs at Barack himself.
"If Obama attended church but disavows its views, what purpose does church serve him that drove him to continue going?" What purpose does seriously attending any church serve? One does not have to disavow the Christian faith to disavow _some_ of the views of one's church or Christian leader. In many cases, fear of change/consequences or simple personal inertia can stop someone from looking for a new church, which Obama will apparently be doing more of this coming January. Obama (whatever he really feels) has just never had to so carefully consider his church's leadership until now.
I don't understand your question "What purpose does seriously attending any church serve?" Perhaps I can understand your point better if you answered the question. I do think everything he and every politician does and says is being read into and scrutinized even if it is a Freudian slip or said in private. It is these things when they are not watched or on defense that we hope will reveal or betray the true intentions and thoughts of each candidate.
I'll do ya one better: I'll try answering both my own question as well as your quoted question that my question was supposed to address (which is, um... what I think you wanted me to do).
Your original question in the comments: "If Obama attended church but disavows its views, what purpose does church serve him that drove him to continue going?"
If you've read any of the detailed profiles of Obama's life and spiritual journey that have been pumped into the public's consciousness due to the media's obsession with the presidential campaign (and, of course, Obama), then you'd know that attending Trinity United Church of Christ served many purposes in his life, not the least of which included a connection to his African roots, an African-American community to welcome him as its own, and a Christian environment in which to grow and seek encouragement/edification. I'm familiar with a lot of these kinds of reasons because I did attend a church I disagreed with significantly for many years, and I can say that it really takes a breaking point for a lot of people to realize that some environments can be toxic to their spiritual health. As can be expected, Obama decries claims that he was close to Wright as an individual, saying that they mostly ate chicken together as families and, by implication, didn't share a strong bond or discipleship sort of deal. I can actually relate to that as well, as the cause of my discomfort at my old church primarily had to do with the pastor and his influence over the rest of the congregation. The church had some great people -- genuine Christians, too -- but bad leadership will inevitably lead to trouble.
And my question in response to yours: "What purpose does seriously attending any church serve?"
I asked my question in response to yours because it seemed a ridiculous question for me to ask if there were any reasons to attend a church even if you disagree with *some* of its views. The key word here is "some" -- because if you disagree with or disavow *all* of a church's views, it's pretty obvious that you're going to that church for all the wrong reasons. Many if not most Christians, however, would disagree with some things their churches teach on; otherwise, there would even be more denominations that we currently have now. The degree to which these differences matter vary with the individual, so people have varying breaking points when it comes to leaving one church, hopefully with the end goal of finding another.
How's that for a start? =)
You may have experienced a church that was authoritarian or had little transparency as I understand it, but that is a social structure /organizational issue which may have been severe, but is different from what's at hand for Trinity United. Come on, look at the extreme views held. It's not subtle at all. Obama is not one to subject himself to torture by continual bombardment of ideas he disagrees with. His profession deals with ideas particularly sociology.
My theory is this. He touted church membership as a political move. Realizing the tainted association, he retracted his chummy stance with Wright. Church and Christianity were political tools that backfired. Also Obama seems savvy and aware of his surroundings. He does not even have to be in close relations to know Wright's views. Wright happens to be quite vocal and direct.
All right, let's tackle this point by point:
"You may have experienced a church that was authoritarian or had little transparency as I understand it, but that is a social structure /organizational issue which may have been severe, but is different from what's at hand for Trinity United."
How so? I suppose since you were not there for a decade of sermons yourself nor did you come to understand how such authoritarianism was possible (via twistings of Scripture and out-of-context interpretations), you might not realize how similarly crazy these respective pastors' more extreme beliefs were. Beliefs justify and enable wrong practices, and the same goes for "social structure /organizational issue[s] which may have been severe." Basically, don't make assumptions if you're not familiar with the whole story.
"Come on, look at the extreme views held. It's not subtle at all. Obama is not one to subject himself to torture by continual bombardment of ideas he disagrees with."
He isn't? Education or profession don't guarantee anything when it comes to spiritual and/or social captivity. Considering some of the folks he's hung out with in the past, he can be quite forgiving of different viewpoints, and his personality lends itself to being open to other perspectives. (See his approaches at the Harvard Law Review and the University of Chicago.)
"His profession deals with ideas particularly sociology."
Psychologically speaking, it would be simplest to see Obama as one seeking the approval of others (due to father issues) as well as being the best in everything he does. Should this not apply to attendance at the popular Trinity church as well? So how does his profession as a lawyer/community activist/politician factor into this (sociologically)?
"My theory is this. He touted church membership as a political move. Realizing the tainted association, he retracted his chummy stance with Wright. Church and Christianity were political tools that backfired. Also Obama seems savvy and aware of his surroundings. He does not even have to be in close relations to know Wright's views. Wright happens to be quite vocal and direct."
Yup, that's a theory all right, and I'm sure that there's little chance I can convince you to think otherwise. True or not, it is just a theory -- just as I've got a theory that his faith is genuine. The only question for me is whether that's a saving faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible or more a feel-good Christianity that can't reconcile with the concept of hell. (The same goes for John McCain when he states that God is loving and personal but not "vengeful.") God only knows whether he's a racist, opportunist, Christian faker or not, but he seems to me closer to heaven than hell (though that might not equate to being saved/born again).
I'm sorry, please realize I do not make light of your past nor can I easily understand it though you draw attention and comparison to it. And, I agree, change is hard.
Dan I believe I have struck a tender nerve and at risk for our friendship we should stop using this medium as it seems to be more an avenue of discord than coming to a common goal. Please continue to comment but we should employ old fashioned dialog more.
You are right about McCain's sentiment. He does not harbor ill towards all Vietnamese however hatred of many of his captors was part of what helped him survive the years as a POW. It was also one of his captors who relieved him of torture because of the captor's Christian faith.
Obama is more polished and cautious. I think if Obama had any underlying racism, I trust it has been mitigated over the years; same with McCain.
Post a Comment