[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Seeking the roots of Wright’s audacity Barack Obama supporters won’t like this, but let the word go forth. Reporters should write more stories about Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., and his relationship with the Democratic presidential candidate. Yes, I say this even after Wright left the campaign. This is not a case of piling on. Journalists have underplayed this story. As Doug LeBlanc noted, consider this profile of Obama in Rolling Stone. Far from being a fresh revelation, some of Wright’s remarks were reported more than a year ago. Yet only now have Wright’s comments caused an uproar. If reporters had scrutinized Wright, the current contretemps would have been long past. A key starting point for reporters should be the roots of Wright’s theology. In the most recent coverage, newspapers have offered two different explanations. The Chicago Tribune quoted Obama as saying that Wright’s theological views are a byproduct of the 1960s: Obama compared Wright to an uncle he was fond of but with whom he disagreed, adding: “Like a lot of African American men of fierce intelligence who came of age [then], he has a lot of the language and the memories and the baggage of those times.” By contrast, The New York Times mentioned nothing about the sixties. Instead, reporter Jodi Kantor emphasized the religious roots of Wright’s vision: Mr. Wright, 66, who last month fulfilled longstanding plans to retire, is a beloved figure in African-American Christian circles and a frequent guest in pulpits around the country. Since he arrived at Trinity in 1972, he has built a 6,000-member congregation through his blunt, charismatic preaching, which melds detailed scriptural analysis, black power, Afrocentrism and an emphasis on social justice; Mr. Obama praised the last quality in Friday’s statement. His most powerful influence, said several ministers and scholars who have followed his career, is black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as a guide to combating oppression of African-Americans. Granted, the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Every theology is rooted in some historical era. Yet readers of the two stories are confused. Does Wright’s theology owe more to “Soul on Ice” or “A Black Theology of Liberation.” (To her credit, Kantor quoted James Cone, the author of the latter book.) If the public were better informed about this question, they would know more about Obama and Wright. Poster Comment: Comments at site: Here are a couple: Stephen A. says: March 15, 2008, at 4:16 pm While I personally believe America is here for America, and that we don’t necessarily have to agree with any other nation’s actions and foreign policy - including Israel’s - the media needs to press him on this point. This isn’t a “gotcha” issue, unless by “gotcha” you mean to ask whether a close friend and preacher for 20 years has somehow all of a sudden gone off the rails and started spouting racialist nonsense, or if it’s more plausible that perhaps the Obama family may buy into it more than they’re letting on. From a political view, of course, that would be poison for his campaign, since whites won’t vote for a faux Black Panther, but have demonstrated (in the primaries at least) that they will vote for a black man. From a media and religious point of view I want to media stories to answer a few questions: 1. What is black liberation theology? Most people don’t know, I’m sure. Many blacks may not even know. Side note: It’s remarkable that Rev. Wright appeared on Hannity & Colmes, and that Obama also appeared on Fox News. Wright is famously camera- and reporter-shy, and Obama has pretty much boycotted Fox News up until now, if I recall correctly. Deacon John M. Bresnahan says: March 15, 2008, at 9:29 pm The question is, is it really theology or Marxist race-class hatred gussied up in Christian garb that Liberation theologians—Protestant or Catholic—are promoting. And the effect of 20 years of imbibing this unChristian hate-mongering philosophy by Obama should be deeply probed by the media—not brushed off as irrelevant when compared to other issues. It is certainly not irrelevant whether a future president has wrapped hiself in Black or White racism or radical left-wing ideology and is now a master of deceit in hiding it through artful speeches and rhetoric. But how many times in the last 24 hours have I seen apologists for Obama in the media say with a straight face that there is no difference between McCain or Clinton accepting an endorsement from some religious leader they barely know and Obama’s apparent deep involvement with Rev. Wright over 20 years. And, I guess Obama can lie as skillfully as Dems repeatedly say Bush does. For one news web site already claims to have evidence Obama was at some of these United Church of Christ hate-fests, although Obama claims he hadn’t the foggiest notion how virulent Rev. Wright’s preaching is. (Do the leaders of the national denomination know, I wonder????)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Peppa (#0)
Love and marriage Question Diversity
Jeepers Creepers "The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I wonder what ol' Trent Lott is thinking these days?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||