Lately, it seems the news channels have had a good deal to say about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, of which presidential hopeful Barack Obama is a congregant. The news media have also shown a not-especially flattering view of the Reverend, and it seemed interesting to me that an intelligent person with political aspirations, such as Senator Obama, would sit in a pew most Sundays for 20 years listening to this individual, if he was as anti-American and divisive as depicted.
One of the reason I questioned it is because I have noticed that sensationalism sells in the news-business. If something seems bleedingly awful and incendiary, people being people, they will watch it. Then ask other people if they've watched it. And wasn't it awful? And the other reason I questioned it is, well, it's an election year. It isn't called "silly season" for nothing. This particular election-year having had a bit more to do with "identity politics" than other years, it struck me that a narrative was being created. Senator Obama hadn't exactly been nailed with the narrative of being unpatriotic or a secret Muslim, but those stories didn't have "legs". Ah, but what about his church? What about that pastor?
"America's chickens have come home to roost!"
"Goddamn America!"
Well, by now, who hasn't seen that more than a few times? And really, who knew that such a, even, dare I say, even-tempered seeming person, as Obama, could sit there and listen to this firebrand? What, really, does all this mean? Does this guy even sound like he likes America? He sounds so, why, angry.
And those are the clips you see on the media. That's what they have time to show you, after all. They'd like to be more objective, but, well, there are other stories out there. But if Jeremiah Wright is so anti-American and divisive, what is he doing here:
from The Politico
Yes, that would be a puzzle, if he were what you've seen so far. But maybe there is a lot more than those clips. Maybe, the Reverend did not stand at the pulpit for all these years saying anti-American things and being angry. Could it be possible that a look at the man in full, might tell us more about why he led a congregation successfully and inspired people? I'd like to think so, and I'm not even a Christian or all that interested in matters regarding the faith of political persons (so long as it remains a separate matter from what they do in office.)
So I was pleased to see these videos put out by the church to shed light on what the man actually said in context, and how it related to a constructive message:
Mercy.
Justice.
If there is anger there, it is part of the passion of a speaker who feels what he is saying. There is sense there. And while one may or may not agree with all of it, he has the freedom to say what he has said, to disagree with the actions of this country where it has been less than merciful, or less than just. And if in addition to these things, there are parts of conspiracy theory or things that don't jibe with the mainstream view, I'd shrug. These things will be said in churches. On radio shows. Books get published, and oddly enough--sometimes people make up their own minds whether they are true or not.
I like to think my take on is a bit broader-minded than people just likening him to Hitler. That seems rather unfair, and also a bit like trying too hard.
Although it's kind of hard to be fair about this part, I did find an interesting thing on the Farrakhan connection, as well. Reverend Wright did go to Libya as part of a group with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. It was a peace mission, and they succeeded in getting a downed US Navy pilot freed as a result. (I don't know why all Farrakhan's on-line bios only relate to the money from Qaddafi. Like, would this mess with his reputation?) This isn't to cast any gleam on any racist or frankly outlandish thing Mr. Farrakhan may have ever said--he's another cause entirely. But doesn't it make sense? You're going to do something in Libya. Take a Muslim guy who speaks fluent Arabic. I don't know. Made sense to me. *(Edit: See below.)
The spinpression created here was unfair enough that I decided to try to "unspin" it, just a little. This should not be necessarily taken as an endorsment of a particular candidate for the Democratic nom--really, would the endorsement of a slightly daft blogger who calls herself Vixen on a little-read blog mean a great deal? Probably not. Also, standard disclaimers about "You know I still don't agree with religion, etc." still apply.
And you know who else pleasantly surprised me by being sick of the spin about Wright? Chris Wallace. My bias is pretty apparent, but he's no member of the "librul media." As far as I know.
Thanks for being candid about this, Mr. Wallace. That's appreciated.
* Edit: While trying to do more research on what the heck was going on with the whole "Goodman release" thing, the ghost of William F. Buckley advised me that it was actually Syria that had been holding him. I'm still looking for something that gives me more detail about how Libya was involved, but I still get why Farrakhan was.
No comments:
Post a Comment