A Tale of Two Clergy

Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.

Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.

In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.

So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.

After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.

Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.

My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.

Crazy Talk

Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.

1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.

2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.

4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.

What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.

And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.