About drasties
Contact Us
Chat RoomHAAT DEMOCRATISCH PRESIDENTSKANDIDAAT BARACK OBAMA AMERIKA?
Barack Obama wordt door rechts Amerika op de korrel genomen vanwege zijn zogenaamde anti-Amerikaanse houding. Opmerkelijk is dat het hierbij niet gaat om uitspraken van Obama zelf, maar van zijn predikant. Nog eens, de woede is gericht op uitspraken van de predikant van de kerk die Obama bezoekt. Wij verheugen ons nu al op de uitspraken van zijn huisarts, chauffeur en kleuterjuf.
Glen Greenwald vat de controverse zo samen.
De verklaring van predikant Wright die het meeste aversie lijkt op te roepen is zijn suggestie dat er een oorzakelijk verband is tussen:
(a) de constante bombardementen en andere bemoeienis met landen in het Midden Oosten van de VS en
(b) de bereidheid van sommige fanatieke moslims uit die wereld om Amerika aan te vallen.
Rechts Amerika meent namelijk dat het leggen van een verband tussen het ene (jarenlange Amerikaanse bombardementen, bezetting, militaire aanwezigheid, boycot’s, dreiging met bombardementen) en het andere (aanslagen tegen Amerikaanse en Westerse belangen) verachtelijk is en een teken van een totaal gebrek aan vaderlandsliefde.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND RADICAL, WHITE EVANGELICAL MINISTERS.
Ross Douthat and Ezra Klein are arguing about whether Jeremiah Wright’s statements are comparable to those of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee’s. To argue that they’re not comparable, Douthat — like most people commenting on this raging controversy — conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:
(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,
(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright’s statements?
Even if the answer to (1) is “yes,” that doesn’t change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding “no.”
The statement of Wright’s which seems to be causing the most upset — and it’s one of two singled out by Douthat — is his suggestion that there is a causal link between (a) America’s constant bombings of and other interference with Middle Eastern countries and (b) the willingness of some Middle Eastern fanatics to attack the U.S. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we’ve been told that positing any such causal connection is a sign of vicious anti-Americanism and that all decent people find such questions despicable. This week we learned that no respectable person would subject his children to a pastor who espouses such hateful ideas. Read on here >>
But the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe — who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator — blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that “the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America” because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.
The phrases “anti-American” and “America-haters” are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never — because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. Does Douthat believe that those individuals are anti-American radicals and that people who allow their children to belong to their churches are exercising grave errors of judgment?
Those advancing the argument of Douthat’s are also wildly understating the magnitude of the association between “anti-American” white evangelicals and Republican leaders. By all accounts, George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters as weighty as whether to invade Iraq. Isn’t that a big scandal — that the President is consulting with an American-hating minister — someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country — about vital foreign policy decisions? No, it wasn’t controversial at all.
John Hagee privately visits with the highest level Middle East officials in the White House and afterwards pronounces that they’re in agreement. John McCain shares a stage with Hagee and lavishes him with praise, as Rudy Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. James Inhofe remains a member in good standing in the GOP Senate Caucus. The Republican Party has tied itself at the hip to a whole slew of “anti-American extremists” — people who believe that the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks because God wants to punish us for the evil, wicked nation we’ve become — and yet there is virtual silence about these associations.
Nor have the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain’s self-proclaimed “spiritual advisers,” received a fraction of the attention generated by Wright. As both David Corn and Alan Colmes, among others, have documented, Parsley espouses views at least as extreme and radical as Wright, including his proclamation that “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed.” Unlike Wright and Obama — for whom the former’s controversial views are found nowhere near the latter’s public or private conduct — both George Bush and John McCain’s Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent.
The Republican Party long ago adopted as a central strategy aligning itself with, and granting great influence to, the most radical, “America-hating” white evangelical Christian ministers in the country. They’re given a complete pass on that because political orthodoxy mandates that white evangelical Christian ministers are inherently worthy of respect, no matter how extreme and noxious are their views. That orthodoxy stands in stark contrast to the universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black Christian Minister. What accounts for that glaring disparity?
UPDATE: Steve M. notes that the Bush White House, in addition to consulting with Robertson, also consulted with the anti-American Jerry Falwell, including on the question of whom the administration should nominate to the Supreme Court. It even appointed a White House liaison for Falwell. When Falwell died, President Bush “said he was deeply saddened by Falwell’s death, calling him ‘a man who cherished faith, family and freedom.’”
Shouldn’t we be very concerned about American children hearing our President praise an American-hating radical who believes that our country is a sick and wicked land that God wanted to be victimized by the 9/11 attacks? Again, the issue here is number (2) above, not number (1).
UPDATE II: Frank Schaeffer, son of highly influential Religious Right figure Francis Schaeffer, writes (h/t FPL-Dan):
When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
He goes on to chronicle his father’s long history of extreme “America-hating” statements, ones which never caused Republicans to repudiate him, and says: “Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits.”Yet Schaeffer, like hordes of similar, America-hating white Christian ministers, are celebrated as cherished figures among the very same right-wing faction feigning such outrage and offense over Wright’s far more mild statements. White, right-wing Christian evangelical rage against America is understandable, respectable, and noble. Liberal black Christian anger towards America is scary, subversive, and despicable.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am
What accounts for that glaring disparity?
You would think that if this continues much longer some intreped journalists might actually start to get embarassed by the disconnect and perhaps mutter something revealing.
In the meantime Obama, true to his style is going to face the issue squarely:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_will_speak_on_wright_rac.php
– Paul Dirks
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’ll tell you the difference real quick-like.
While those white ministers may have made extreme statements and endorse McCain or whoever, here’s the difference:
Wright is Obama’s spiritual advisor, Obama has attended his church for 20 years, and Wright was a member (until VERY recently) on the African American religious advisory committee for Obama’s campaign. THAT’S the difference.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Two useful resources
Frank Schaeffer’s father was a right-wing Christian minister, who invoked fire and brimstone on the U.S.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=print
Robert Pape has conducted research into the causes of suicide terrorism: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/16/91327/0831/128/477856
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Hagee and friends
When I was in Berkeley back in the 70s it was pretty common to see “Jesus Freaks” up and down Telegraph and Sproul plaza. Often they would preach “gospel” that would be familiar to the likes of Hagee and friends. As I recall they were always white.
This sort of reminds me of that. Do those guys still hang out there?
– DrEyeBall
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
kufir77
here’s the difference:
Wright is Obama’s spiritual advisor, Obama has attended his church for 20 years, and Wright was a member (until VERY recently) on the African American religious advisory committee for Obama’s campaign. THAT’S the difference.
Seriously, can you read? This is from the first paragraph of the post:
To argue that they’re not comparable, Douthat — like most people commenting on this raging controversy — conflates two entirely separate analytical issues:
(1) Given their close and long-standing personal relationship, does Wright merit more scrutiny vis-a-vis Obama than white, radical evangelical ministers merit vis-a-vis Republican politicians? and,
(2) Are the statements of white evangelical ministers subjected to the same standards of judgment as those being applied to Wright’s statements?
Even if the answer to (1) is “yes,” that doesn’t change the fact that the answer to (2) is a resounding “no.”
I begin the post — with people like you in mind — by distinguishing between issues (1) and (2) as clearly as the English language permits, and make as clear as can be that I’m primarily addressing issue (2), not (1).
Yet despite that, you come along and address only issue (1), and then congratulate yourself as though you’ve refuted a single word that was written.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I nearly destroyed a television yesterday
While eating breakfast at a nameless motel yesterday morning, the TV was spewing Faux News. I was doing my best not to listen, but did hear a “teaser” for their continuing coverage of the Jeremiah Wright outrage. After the break, they were to return with the thoughts of a sage on this issue:
none other than John McCain. After laughing too loudly, I left the room quickly. I’ll do a bit of searching and see if anyone has posted of YouTube of what they broadcast. It could be quite relevant to this discussion.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
And There it Is!
The reason why the War on Iraq will end the day Obama is elected, and I’ll wager the troops will be out by Inaugurate Day.
It’s like this: As soon as you posit a world in which the United States must be a responsible world actor according to its principles, the entire reason for, and the tactics of the War on Iraq fall to pieces. Once those two things, the war crimes and the economic crimes, are taken out of the war, there is no longer a reason to fight it, and a way to fight it.
Now, would you be happy to do the things American Armed Forces and their contracters are doing if you had to depend on an Obama administration, instead of a Bush neo-con administration, to see there was no accountability for your actions? Hell no, you would stop and get out while the getting’s good. And lawyer the hell up.
Shit, Obama won’t need to stop the war, I doubt they would stay if he begged them.
Whether Hilary could strike an accomodation I do not know, but I don’t think Obama can, for which I am truly thankful.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I’ve never had any respect for any of the nuts on the Right
Before I knew who Obama was or who his spiritual advisor was. Then again, some of my more obnoxious (and more religious) right-wing acquaintences asked me about my religious beliefs, not to long after 9/11 and I told them I was an atheist. They so generously called me a C***, a B**** and a traitor and told me I was going to hell with Osama bin Laden and I must be glad he had attacked the US. Please note I hadn’t brought any of this up, they did. Apparently, not believing in God was enough.
So, I just don’t really have any patience with either side. Left or right, in this. They can call names all they want. Neither side speaks for me and, quite frankly, I just don’t have much time for them.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Theology made simple
Not bombing angers God.
That’s it. There’s nothing more to think about.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
SueNJ97
Welcome to the club..
Living in the deep South I long ago learned to keep my lack of religious faith to myself, it can easily lose you a job down here.. Or get your child ostracized at school if you speak up about illegal practices on the part of public school teachers.
Funny thing about the followers of “the Prince of Peace”, they aren’t always that peaceful.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
In defense of kufir77
To Glenn’s response below — Yes, Glenn, we can all read and yes, we understand that you choose to disregard (1) and focus on (2). It seems that what kufir77 was saying was that you can’t just ignore (1). You may be entirely right about (2). (And, personally, I don’t know how much 1 matters to me either.) But it’s fair for someone to point out that you might not be playing fair by dismissing (1) so casually.
Wouldn’t your argument be better if you tried to find the validity in a criticism rather than a glib retort? I guess that doesn’t make for good blogging.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yes Glenn, you’re right. We truly are living in the US of KKK A!
Wow, I feel honored, getting attacked by the “writer” himself.
Whenever I’m reading something by a hack and I read the words vis-a-vis twice in the same sentence, my brain has this problem where it glazes over the rest of the article. It’s almost like it already knows the rest isn’t worth reading.
Please accept my apology. Keep BLOGGING one off!
But the fact remains, America is not as racist as you wish it was (after all, it makes for better “writing”). If you can dig up McCain or Hillary’s preacher of 20 years speaking that way about the US only days after 9/11, people will be just as outraged. You see, people in this country generally don’t think its right for a Christian pastor to be using the phrase “God damn” in his sermons, no matter what color they are. Kind of hypocritical, don’t you think? Using the Lord’s name in vain?
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Preacher Schmeacher
John Hume tells the story of the occasion when he said to Ian Paisley, “Ian, if the word ‘no’ were to be removed from the English language, you’d be speechless, wouldn’t you!” Paisley replied, “No, I wouldn’t!”
We don’t have anyone like the Right Reverend Ian Paisley. Or do we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley
– L.W.M.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Wright
In should be noted that you ignore one of Wright’s other statements, which is that the U.S. government created AIDS and spread it in the African American community in order to destroy it.
I’d say that’s up there with the studpidest statements of the white evangelicals.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
@kufir
people in this country generally don’t think
You should have stopped there.
maart 18th, 2008 at 9:58 am
We can not all even agree on what “America” is.
Sure we can.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
If we accept that the US Constitution is the most tangible thing we identify with “America” then it becomes clear that there is a direct correlation between the likelihood of someone using the phrase “America hater” and they themselves being traitors.
Funny how that works.