… probably a bit of an egotist, but there’s a very interesting take on Barack Obama’s former pastor at Salon, where Sarah Posner interviews religious studies scholar Jonathan L. Walton. Walton wonders how Dr Martin Luther King would have fared under the reign of YouTube, and makes some similar points about King’s radicalism as others have - King, he suggests, was somewhat more of a radical than Wright.
I might add that I look upon Obama somewhat more favourably now that I know that he chose to join one of America’s leading liberation theology inspired churches. I suspect I’m in a very small minority though.
I do wonder how he thought this all through. As I’ve commented before, part of the reason why Wright was utilised prominently by Obama’s campaign was to counter the vilely motivated rumour that he’s a secret Muslim. It was when Hillary joined that chorus that I gave up on her. But Obama’s embrace of Wright still raises some interesting questions. I’m quite happy to see it as a sign that he’s more of a liberal than I might have thought, but that’s not going to be good for him electorally!
Kim:
Wright - Presidential candidate?
Not in a million years, Graham.
Great stuff here from Bill Moyers on Wright. Absolutely worth a watch, if only to see how journalism should be practised. And yes, Wright does make mention of King and his radicalism, they also talk about black liberation theology. Interesting stuff.
The interview with Wright.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html
And Moyers video essay on the fallout.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html
Cheers, Phil.
Hi Kim,
I am amazed that in America one adult is responsible for another adults views. Also I think that the american media has overdone ’shanahan style’ on this topic. I understand the Rev Hagee, a McCain backer maybe even more caustic in his views, but the media aren’t interested in McCain.
I heard Clinton say that the best part of being in the Democratic party is that everyone is welcome. But she only meant everyone with the same religious, political, and social views. Anyone outside this sphere is not acceptable.
I also watched Obama’s address to the Jefferson Institute. Was it my imagination, or did he have alot of the same platforms that our own PM Rudd had during the election. Green car industry, energy costs to counteract climate change, early education from the time they are born, and most interesting one of the suggestions to come out of the 2020 summit, was a $4000 credit given to college students to help with college costs in return they will have to do community work. Overall he also made a strong case for not being tied to a power group or lobby group. He stressed that by being free of these ties he would be able to make real change in Washington. Obama won’t have to “pay back” once in office to these groups. I hope that his vision is realised, it would be good to have a POTUS that only has to answer to the people, instead of paying back companies and corporations that got them their in the first place.
The context here, aj, is the way politicians have tended to tout their pastors as close spiritual advisors - eg. Clinton with Jesse Jackson and Billy Graham (!)… it’s part of the whole religious politics thing. And Obama really did cosy up to Rev. Wright before the YouTube bombshell was dropped.
Yeh Kim, but would that make Catholics responsible for their priests behaviour? On that would that make us responsible for Howard’s behaviour to refugees in the world’s eyes. What I’m trying to say is that Obama said this is my pastor, trying to go the road of every candidate who has put their hand up for POTUS. If he didn’t, in America’s religious states, that would have been another thing that they would have bashed him for.
That’s the bind he’s in, aj.
Some of the biggest riots in C19th US were anti-Catholic, anti-Irish riots.
Catholicism, at least the Irish variety, has been fairly thoroughly nativised since those days.
I doubt that black religious expression of the kind practised by Wright will ever get the USDA Seal of Approval. Too much bad Ju-Ju in America’s racial past for that.
US religiosity is so vivid and dynamic that it thrusts itself into the storm-centres of American culture wars.
Americans would hardly recognise mainstream Australian religiosity, with its mumble and crouch and its Sunday platitudes, as religion at all.
Barack oughtta join Mumblers and Crouchers (Australian Branch). There’s a nice safe religion for him that won’t offend anyone.
What Katz said. As well, religion in the US seems to play, in part, some of the role that social democratic parties and the like play elsewhere. Vibrant, populist and politicised religious expression is what you have when you decide that you don’t need formal institutional political expression for respecting the social rights, and the economic and political power of people who have to organise to get any respect at all. Populist religiosity is the demand for ‘respect’ by private subscription. Perfect for the US elite, but very imperfect for any political force that tries to make rational political programs and policies a basis for forcing the powerful to negotiate over power and money. La Clinton is a complete tool, and the US Democratic Party a standing exemplar of what the powerful in this country really, really wish for.
I feel that many democratic and libertarian socialists would have no problem rejecting a couple of things about this rich white ex-marine.
1) His AIDS denial. Any responsible person must recognize the hard this has caused and continues to cause.
2) His support for the authoritarianism of figures like Farrakhan and Gadaffi.
See you don’t have to be an American.
Obama imho, first lost a great chance to restate the vital importance of a secular state, then to separate himself from both the tainted crazy Wright notions above and the mad Marxism of the likes of his friendly neighborhood professors. ( Ayers and co)
I went from being a strong supporter to now being a skeptic. This whole business has been a disaster for Obama and there’s no spinning it.
On the bright side whoever gets this gig is in for some serious fresh hell - as well as the disgusting mess to clean up.
I might add that I look upon Obama somewhat more favourably now that I know that he chose to join one of America’s leading liberation theology inspired churches.
I could have some sympathy with that, but that he as well to associate himself with bigotry and hatemongering as well. Jeremiah Wright did not simply advocate liberation theology, but racial supremacism. This is no more pleasant coming from a black man than from a caucasian, arab or asian.
I am amazed that in America one adult is responsible for another adults views.
Barack Obama chose to associate himself with Reverend(?) Wrights views. He need not have done this, but he did. On that basis Obama may not be responsible for Wrights views, but he has endorsed them and accepted responsibility. If nothing else, he attended the church for twenty years, sat through the racial abuse, and uttered not a word of objection. His continued attendance demonstrates endorsement.
You know it!
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002900
Kim [6]:
Hey! Steady on there! Jesse Jackson was probably one of the greatest Presidents the United States never had.
No Iraq war. Israelis whinging about Hebrew being below Arabic on the Dinar banknotes of Unified Middle East Trade Bloc. Chinese protesting to the U.N. about Americans and Russians locking them out the best Martian mining leases. Benin and Cameroon universities poaching the best-and brightest from Ivy League universities.
Yep. It would have been a much better world if a Jesse Jackson presidency had come to pass.
…. Dunno about that Billy Graham though.
That’s what my (!) referred to, Graham.
Katha Pollitt hits the spot as usual here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/316971/preachers_and_politics
Religion whether of left or right offers almost no guidance for practical questions of public policy.
Kim [16}
Right.
Thanks for the Pollitt link, Geoff.
I am bemused that the leading practitioners of religion in the US tend to embody all that is wrong with religion.
Anyone who takes the time to read the Old Testament writings of the prophets will see how radical and pro-Israelite they were. What is wrong with a contemporary prophet being radical, confrontational and pro-African American? Also, there is a difference between being for something and thinking it is better that everything else… In my opinion, Wright merely told the truth about our government, but with an attitude, and a lot of people don’t like that. Surely you would not argue that every war initiated by America was justifiable! It only follows that we in some cases, we are reaping what we have planted. You can’t throw a rock a break your neighbor’s window and hide your hand without it coming back to you in some way.. it is a belief common in most philosophies and religions. Tootles….