Posted by Helen on: 12.07.2008 /
by Peter Walker
I think my election buzz has finally run its course, and I’m starting to feel the effects of impending hangover.
Surveying the collateral damage caused by a long and vicious campaign season, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed with all of the rhetoric still hanging in the air – some of it largely unchallenged. All is fair between politicians, but once the races finish, the American people are expected to forget the harshest allegations and campaign propaganda.
“I didn’t really mean he was a friend of terrorists…”
President-elect Obama called it “do anything, say anything politics.”
But I haven’t forgotten, and neither should you. As Christians, we have some claims to confront, and even more to answer for.
Of course we’re used to heated rhetoric from the Religious Right (and its most vocal opponents), usually regarding abortion or same-sex marriage. Although we saw plenty of that in the last few months, overall those subjects seemed to find less traction this election year. Instead, we were inundated by groundswell of fresh charges: religious-trickery.
That’s right: “Obama is a secret Muslim!” Which is apparently synonymous with “un-American.” If you run in evangelical circles, as I still do, you probably received some frantic, conspiratorial chain e-mails (feel free to check out www.SecretMuslim.org for a slick, shameless effort to allege Obama’s Christian faith a sham).
Can we agree that no such campaign would ever be made to frame a white candidate bearing a neatly-western name? No one would believe it. This was racism and ethnocentrism to the core.
I’ll admit that most of the allegations against Obama’s Christianity came far-removed from the McCain-Palin ticket, and even the Republican National Committee. No legitimate political campaign would make such outrageous claims – the public wouldn’t tolerate it! Would they?
Enter North Carolina Senator (former Red Cross CEO, former first-lady candidate, vocal Evangelical) Elizabeth Dole. In late October, the incumbent Republican – desperate to gain traction amid a national surge of Democratic voters – aired a commercial portraying her political opponent Kay Hagan as “Godless,” suggesting such a position was “un-American.”
“A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser for Kay Hagan,” the spot claimed, before showing clips from members of a group declaring the nonexistence of God. “Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras; took godless money. What did Kay Hagan promise in return?”
How sinister!
Through suggestive half-truths and outright falsities, Dole’s 30-second spot ended with a static photo of Hagan, as viewers heard a female voiceover: “there is no God.” Despite overt inference, the voice was not Hagan’s.
The “Godless” commercial opened with a smiling Dole: “I’m Elizabeth Dole, and I approve this message.”
Pundits on CNN and other news media cried foul, but no one from the Christian Coalition, the Religious Right or any affiliated organizations challenged Senator Dole on her shameless tactics. No dissenting editorials in Christian publications. No “Kingdom” response.
In a conference with reporters, Hagan vehemently defended her faith: “I am a Sunday school teacher, I am an elder at First Presbyterian Church in Greensboro, my family has been going to this church for over 100 years, I have raised my children there. I have been involved in youth missions.”
The issue at hand should not be whether or not Hagan is a genuine Christian. That’s a distraction, and no American should have to answer to it. The issue is how we have come to a point in our country where Christians are questioning the faith of other Christians, and how that questioning is done in the name of “patriotism.” Back in the fifteenth century, the church organized some inquisitors to ask these sorts of questions…
In America, the name of Jesus has become a political weapon. Citizenship in the Kingdom of God has been perverted into a sort of litmus test of good citizenship. Yet harsh life lessons have taught me that religious affiliation rarely indicates character. Changed beliefs don’t automatically lead to changed behavior.
I’d rather have a Muslim or an atheist of good character in offices of power than corrupt, jaded Christians who use their spiritual status as campaign fodder.
Comment by: MartinGugino
1RE: Christianity should not be a prerequisite for public office
I wasn’t sure where you were going with the post. I agree with you of course. How could it be?
You almost lost me here, but then go on to show that you dont believe that statement either. Apparently some politicians will say anything if it “sells”. Sad.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
2Me too
Comment by: MartinGugino
3If electing a Christian leader meant that we would make a real effort to not kill our enemy, that we would care for the poor and weak, then I would go for Chritianity as a criterion for my political selections. But since it doesn’t look as though that is the result – that the powerful help the rich, and the weak are left to help the poor – then I don’t see the value in it.
Comment by: Peter Walker
4Martin, you said:
“You almost lost me here, but then go on to show that you dont believe that statement either.”
I’m not sure I understand. I DO believe that if Obama were white, with a traditional-sounding name, the “Muslim” allegations and “false Christian” allegations would not be made. They have nothing to do with his beliefs, platform or communiques, and everything to do with color and heritage.
I agree that folks will say anything.
Comment by: Eliza
5Peter, I couldn’t agree more! Except that since I’m not Christian, there are a few parts of your post on which I have a slightly different “take”.
First, for your closing line, I imagine generalizing it like this:
Second, several people in the media commented on the Obama/Muslim rumor that it was thought-provoking that in this country the response was to defend him as a Christian, rather than asking: “So what if he were a Muslim; why should it even matter?” (Campbell Brown & Rachel Maddow each raised this on their respective shows, maybe others did too).
But when it came to the Dole attack ads on Haggen, I heard support for Haggen at her being so viciously and unfairly attacked (for being supposedly “godless”, a term which accurately describes me and many people I know, though we more commonly use the Greek form rather than the Anglo-Germanic form). I heard Haggen’s rebuttal, which was apparently all truthful, and which she had to do to get elected in this country. But she didn’t add, nor did I hear anyone outside atheist circles say she should add, any comment like: “But so what if I were an atheist, as my opponent has accused? I’m still the same person I’ve always been, a good person, and I’ll still do my best to represent my constituents in Washington DC.”
Comment by: Ken Duble
6Comment by: Helen
7Peter thanks for your article. Like you the character of candidates is what matters to me when I go to vote.
Eliza wrote:
Thanks Eliza – that’s a good point.
She probably said what she thought would go over best with most voters. If she had defended the character of atheists, atheists would have loved it but they are in the minority and it’s not clear that it would have been seen as positive by non-atheist voters. I think it’s most likely that most non-atheist people don’t think about defending atheists; but it could also be that if they do think about it they regard it as a somewhat risky strategy that may not be worth the risk.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
8Not that I disagree with you, but calling a large group and labeling them “Religious Right” aren’t you doing the same thing? I know that if these claims are true, Obama and Biden and the Religious Left also have some answers to give and rhetoric to be confronted with the way they also made libelous claims against McCain and Palin. Let’s not be hypocrites.
Comment by: David H
9Unfortunately, in the United States it almost seems that hypocrisy is a pre-requisite to seeking elected office.
The question of who called whom what is often a prelude to excusing further hypocrisy. They called me a bad thing, so I can now call them a bad thing. How about so-called Christians getting out of the business of questioning the faith of others? How about Christians simply not join the fray in that way, since one untruth can’t justify another. That would be novel in this country and, perhaps, an avenue away from hypocrisy.
As for the religious left, I didn’t know there was such a body (i.e. a group defined by things like The Moral Majority and Focus on the Family; those groups that at various points in the election campaign made recommendations about which candidates they would or would not support because of their religious beliefs). But if there is such a group, what would be some of the libelous claims they made against McCain and Palin? Or perhaps you just mean the half-truths, untruths and other variations on lies put out by various components of the Democratic party?
If the latter, your point seems moot. Politicians are liars. They have to be; we demand it of them. But that somehow seems different from supposed Christian or faith-based organizations equating religion with patriotism or purporting that someone’s faith is a sham.
This article cites one such example.
What are some examples of “The Religious Left” making libelous statements regarding McCain/Palin?
Comment by: Mike Lewis
10I would say it is harder to find links to the “religious left” since many are accepted comments…i.e. they probably wouldn’t be considered libelous by the leftists who support such things.
My point is that by merely calling someone “religious right” is in and of itself a slanderous thing as the left has vilified people trying to live up to God’s standards as somehow saying evil things against another group. Not saying all points are fair game…sometimes Dobson says stuff that is pretty dumb.
Somehow now, equating anything with Bush (whom I believe has always had good and moral intentions) is the way to knock it down as evil.
I would say the religious left exists as people who consider themselves Emergent; postmodern. Brian McLaren is one such person who made their opinions loud about why voting for Obama was the moral decision any Christian should make. They tend to treat people of modern or mainstream Christian faith as hypocrites or people who do not care about social justice. I argue that it is the opposite. The “right” care very deeply about the poor and the social outcasts. The “right” just wants people to do as Jesus also taught and “go and sin no more”. By pointing this out, they get branded as somehow lacking the right to do so, when we are called to call evil evil. The right tend to do as Paul said and don’t stand on street corners praying loudly. They don’t stand in public and rip their clothing when they fast. The right go to their closets in secret and do good. In that, they have earned their reward.
As for Obama being Muslim, I think it is the wackos that say that. The majority know he’s a Christian (if you can call it that…I have no tolerance for the evil things Wright said).
Somehow the conservative people in America are “stupid” as Palin and Bush got labeled. Its hard for me to believe one can go to an Ivy league school and be stupid.
In summary, the religious left are bloggers who don’t get media coverage unless their name is Markos. The amount of negative things I have heard from people calling themselves Christians on the left was mind-boggling. Which ever side you choose to associate with, you don’t have a pass just because it is more accepted than another. Some of these people who said these things are my friends. I chose to be silent and let God sort it out. But most of the time, their comments were hurtful toward people like myself who tend to be more conservative. People like me who don’t “attack” someone on the left for saying something that is ungodly.
A lot of these bloggers and friends lifted up Claibornes book “Jesus for President” which had a huge left slant to it. He all but accused conservatives of being evil.
For once, I just want an honest portrayal of the “right” who aren’t the people that get the coverage in what I believe to be a very liberal media. I think we’d see a much different picture if there was a balanced report of true Christian people.
Thanks for letting me comment here. I appreciate it.
Comment by: Helen
11Mike wrote:
Mike, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Maybe it would be good to say what you said to us to your friends who said hurtful things in your presence. Not as an ‘attack’ but simply to let them know that it hurts you when they say unfair things about a group which includes you.
One of the problems with groups is, when you’re in a group of like-minded people it’s too easy to get away with saying things that are unfair about other groups. The Religious Left can fall into this just like other groups can.
Comment by: benjdm
12That’s the issue? Because I thought the issue was that Dole was suggesting it was bad to listen to atheists’ concerns, take their money, or treat them like equal citizens.
Would a similar ad attacking Pete Stark be a problem?
Comment by: Mike Lewis
13I have told them. They apologized, but they still do it. But you are correct.
It’s hard to love a person like Obama who is literally dividing God’s people. In this case, he is no different than W.
For this reason, I don’t think Jesus would have voted.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
14How is Obama dividing Gods people? It would help me understand if you could cite some specific examples of this from your point of view
Comment by: Mike Lewis
15Well, that’s not what I meant. I meant that Obama as a figure has people divided and is dividing God’s people. The same type of thing that caused people to fight over Bush’s faith in his election years and try to say you can’t be a Christian if you follow him.
It’s hard to love someone that has so many people arguing.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness
I dare not trust the sweetest frame
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.
Comment by: Eliza
16Mike L, I’m a bit confused. Wasn’t there also controversy about Jesus & his teachings? (Well, among leaders at least.)
Would it be possible to have someone who makes a difference, who doesn’t leave some people unhappy? (For example, those who liked the status quo.)
I’m not equating Obama & Jesus. I’m just asking.
Comment by: David H
17I’m not sure Jesus taught this. As a sinless person who saved a woman from those who would enforce the law, Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Jesus didn’t question whether she was guilty, only the right of her accusers to enforce the law.
Given those circumstances are there any followers of Jesus who should feel empowered to tell another: Go and sin no more? Or is the real message of that encounter that no one short of Jesus has the authority to say such a thing?
Mike, I hear what you are trying to say and agree that it is unfair to stereotype an entire group of people. However, I also hear you parroting many right wing talking points while at the same time failing to provide much in the way of concrete examples for your contentions about the left.
Just to be clear, I am not an Obama supporter. Some of the people following this thread have probably been a little vexed at my hope that Obama doesn’t turn out to be just another politician. But part of my lack of conviction about Obama is that he repudiated Rev. Jeremiah Wright because it was expedient to do so. The sound bites of Wright speaking that have drawn so much attention have been misrepresented for political purposes. Rather than say that, Obama disowned his pastor.
Fortunately, the internet allows any of us to find entire sermons given by Wright on YouTube. In fact, I have listened to him say: “God damn America” in context. I challenge you to seek out those same things and listen to them also before calling them “evil.” Just as Jesus said that only God is good (thus any good done by people reflects God), I’m not sure you can call any person evil unless you are fully prepared to back that up by knowing fully what they said or did.
I consider myself a Christian, if you met me on a street corner you might even agree that I was. My father was a pastor, I was raised in the church, saved at age 5, baptized the same year. Most of my life has been lived around churches and followers of Jesus (many conservative and, lately, a few that I would once have labeled liberal). I think now, after nearly 30 years, there is beginning to be a balanced report on Christians because many are no longer allowing groups like Moral Majority, Focus on Family and the 700 Club to define the purpose and meaning of their faith. Perhaps some of them are a little extreme, a lot are uncertain (they might not know what they believe, they just know that they can’t continue to believe Jesus would be a Republican — or a Democrat).
Personally, I don’t believe it is Obama or McCain or Bush that divides the people of God. What divides them is that they begin to worship a political agenda and all that goes along with that. The candidates are simply the prophets of that faith and their trick is getting people to believe that following them or following their country is the same as following God.
Through this we allow ourselves to be distracted from the most important teachings of Jesus. Remember, after saving the adulterous woman, Jesus didn’t say we need new laws to make sure she goes and sins no more. He could have insured her lack of future sin by letting her be stoned. Moral conduct was not the core of what Jesus taught. Most important to him was love and grace.
If Christians would live that out then they wouldn’t have to worry what the press says about them whether that supposed entity is liberal or not.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
18He did. He was also the son of God. What has Obama taught in which the controversy is even close to something Jesus taught. Nothing.
People like to play the Obama/Jesus game and I just refuse to fall for it.
If we go this far, then wasn’t there controversy with Bush and his teachings and him making a difference who doesn’t leave some people unhappy? Its a game that can be played all day long. I just won’t fall for it.
Besides, Obama hasn’t done anything yet…and it sounds like he’s reneging on all the promises he made already.
Wasn’t this originally about how the “religious right” is somehow lambasted for saying anything negative even if it’s true while the “religious left” gets a free pass?
Obama is already elected. I am not one of the bitter clingers who will keep his bumper stickers on for 4 years. I’m over it.
Comment by: Helen
19Mike, are you saying Jesus made a difference and didn’t leave anyone unhappy?
Surely he made some people very unhappy. Otherwise he wouldn’t have got crucified.
But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.
Comment by: David H
20Above is what I thought we were discussing.
However, if the religious right — whoever they are — is being treated unfairly these days, they need to look at their conduct over the past couple of decades to understand why. They pushed a hard agenda using very hard methods and some questionable personalities. They have now reached a point of push back that involves common people as well as the “liberal” media. Such backlash is fairly common in politics and the supposed religious left may face it in a few years should they push too hard or too far for the tastes of the average American.
As for the Obama/Jesus game, I’m not sure what that is. Certainly such an comparison, if that’s what we are talking about, can’t be extended very far at this point. Let’s wait until he tries to usher in the Kingdom, then we can crucify him.
My chief concern continues to be neither the policies nor the policy makers. Rather it is that Christians keep seeking secular power by applying Godly terms to politicians and the political process. If we don’t believe they are messiahs, why are we so intent on telling everyone that God endorses them? However, of even greater concern to me is when “the faithful” anoint a candidate that we expect them to push an agenda that requires everyone to “go and sin no more.”
The mission of Jesus, the commission he gave his followers, the Kingdom of God — none of those things are morality-based. At the very least, they are not about the morals I think you should have. I wish that Christians would stop putting so much effort into electing presidents — regardless of their moral character — and start living (rather than preaching) the Good News.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
21No Helen, I was saying quite the opposite.
Comment by: Helen
22Fair enough Mike – thanks for clarifying.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
23I reread my comments and do not see any right wing talking points. In fact what I hear is me trying to give both sides a fair shake.
Comment by: David H
24Right-win talking points:
1. Liberal media bias — actual evidence is this doesn’t exist. However, it is endlessly repeated.
2. The evil things Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. He didn’t say what some are saying he said.
3. “…the left has vilified people trying to live up to God’s standards as somehow saying evil things against another group.” Most of the people I talk to aren’t concerned about the standards I try to live up to, but they don’t like it when I try to set the same standards for them.
4. “Obama hasn’t done anything yet…and it sounds like he’s reneging on all the promises he made already.” This has been a constant refrain through the election, first by Obama’s Democratic rivals and then by the Republican candidates. It’s time to let this go or at least retire it until he actually does something (like fails to keep a promise).
Comment by: Mike Lewis
251. Liberal media bias — actual evidence is this doesn’t exist. However, it is endlessly repeated.
Actually evidence does exist if you listen. Most that don’t think exists are liberals. This might be the only talking point in your list.
2. The evil things Rev. Jeremiah Wright said. He didn’t say what some are saying he said.
Yes he did. This could be a talking point.
3. “…the left has vilified people trying to live up to God’s standards as somehow saying evil things against another group.” Most of the people I talk to aren’t concerned about the standards I try to live up to, but they don’t like it when I try to set the same standards for them.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I fail to see how this is a talking point of the right. I have never heard this brought up.
4. “Obama hasn’t done anything yet…and it sounds like he’s reneging on all the promises he made already.” This has been a constant refrain through the election, first by Obama’s Democratic rivals and then by the Republican candidates. It’s time to let this go or at least retire it until he actually does something (like fails to keep a promise).
I haven’t heard any of this…yet this is my observation that I don’t hear anyone talking about lately. He has already said he’s not going to give that tax break to 95% of people at this point.
As for THESE being talking points of the right…this is pretty mild stuff compared to what I believe the REAL talking points of the Right and Left. These are my observations, not talking points. I have said nothing about Marxism, environment, Fascism, Big Oil, evil corporations, Ayers, Bush, Rove, Alinsky and the like.
For the record, I am a registered independent. Pretty weak arguments here.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
26Again, I am trying to give both sides a fair shake…it’s pretty easy to label people as you have to me as a “right winger” when I am far from it.
Comment by: David H
27I am not trying to label you as anything. What I am saying is that many people repeat as fact stuff that they hear regardless of its truthfulness.
As for liberal media bias — please provide evidence of a verifiable independent study on the subject. We can talk anecdotes all day. That isn’t real; it’s perception. Your liberal bias is my fair and accurate reporting.
A discussion of the studies regarding liberal media bias can be found here. There are some that suggest such a bias, but it is in the beliefs of the media people not in how they cover the news.A study conducted by the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University came to the conclusion: “When it comes to sources, ‘liberal bias’ is nowhere to be found.”
On Jeremiah Wright, tell me what “evil” things he said. Please put them in context; don’t just give the sound-bite sentences. You might want to start here.
The left vilifying the morality of upstanding people is a long-running conservative talking point. It has its own moniker: culture wars. Dr. James Dobson gives us a pretty good overview of this position in a 2002 letter titled “Standing Strong in a Confused Culture.”
Here is one quote: “There are many people in the activist community who hate the Judeo-Christian system of values, and recognize that if they can gain control of children, they can change the entire culture in one generation.”
Finally, on Obama hasn’t done anything yet, Sarah Palin made that the crux of her speech at the Republican Convention. Story on that here. The audience even had a prepared response because of the frequency with which that charge was leveled during the convention. They shouted: “Zero, Zero.”
Strangely, I can’t find any references to Obama saying he is not going to give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans. Perhaps you could supply a reference for that contention.
Your political affiliations are not a concern of mine. However, I am concerned that you are not giving a fair shake to both sides. I try not to repeat second or third-hand accusations. The internet is a wonderful tool for going to the source.
And yes, all of this is fairly mild compared to the racism, personal attacks, religious innuendo and lies that Americans were treated to during the most recent election campaign. Perhaps that is fair game in politicks, but why do Christians participate?
Comment by: Julie Marie
28David H, I just want to say I always enjoy your contributions. Thanks!
Comment by: Mike Lewis
29First of all, you are assuming you already know what I am thinking.
When I say Obama hasn’t done anything yet, I mean as President. He has not been sworn in yet. He hasn’t done anything yet.
As for the tax break, he recently said, it’s not the best time to give people tax breaks. I had a bear of a time trying to find these things: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1108/Obama_not_likely_to_push_repeal_of_Bush_tax_cuts.html
He’s not pulling all the troops out as quick as he originally promised: http://wordpress.redstate.com/moe_lane/2008/12/04/campaign-promises-on-ending-the-war-in-iraq-now-muted-by-reality/
As for all the other stuff like independent studies and references, I don’t have the time to go find them. I seem to think you’ll find issue with them anyway. I don’t think you’ll believe me, but I don’t think there is a such thing as an independent or non biased group. Everyone has a viewpoint and journalism is a dead art form. Although I could say I seem to remember reading a news story which found Wikipedia to be overwhelmingly liberaly biased. Here’s an example of a report or two: http://newsbusters.org/node/5043
You’ve labeled me in your mind before you’ve read what I’ve written and that is obvious by the way you keep reading into what I have said. I will REPEAT: I AM A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT/NO AFFILIATION. I am more conservative, but it depends on the issue because I am liberal on others.
You ended with: all of this is fairly mild compared to the racism, personal attacks, religious innuendo and lies that Americans were treated to during the most recent election campaign.
My response: Obama’s side did all this too. The one who brought up race the most was Obama. McCain refused to discuss his race. But it gets a pass by the liberal media.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
30As for Mr. Wright,
He is just another Word-Faith Teacher. A false teacher which when listened to, you wouldn’t think he even knew his Bible.
That guy is a racist. And yes I heard the whole sermon. I have heard many of his sermons. I didn’t take it out of context. He said what he said. If he can’t stand by his words, then maybe he shouldn’t say them.
Comment by: Julie Marie
31I have not read of him retracting his statements.
His conspiracy theories I put down to irresponsible rants. but the quote that got the most press, where he asked God to damn America…well, I can see why he says that, from what I understand of his point of view.
One of the lessons I am learning now is acceptance. To accept someone’s point of view; to acknowledge you understand where they are coming from, does not have to mean agreement. The culture wars have done much to sharpen the divisions among us by encouraging us to look at those who do not agree with us as stupid at best and evil at worst. We as a country will not progress beyond the level of politics we have now unless we as individuals learn how to listen for understanding rather than listen to prove a point.
When we stop falling for “litmus tests” ~ when typecasting our opponents as the boogieman du jour stops working, then the level of discourse will rise.
Or so I think, anyways.
Mike L,
I agree that there is no such thing as unbiased journalism. I don’t think human bias can be kept out of writing–it even shows up in the questions journalists choose to ask – nevermind how the questions are phrased. The key, for me, is to recognize it is there and keep my own critical thinking center working as I read.
Comment by: David H
32I might quibble with his choice of words, but not his sentiment. Perhaps he doesn’t know his Bible, but he seems relatively well-versed in US history.
Comment by: David H
33Two of those conspiracy theories:
1. The U.S. government has been under the sway of the KKK.
2. The U.S. government created the AIDS virus.
In reference to the first conspiracy, the 1924 Democratic National Convention came within a few votes of nominating for president a candidate supported by the KKK. The convention itself was called The Klanbake. The Klan supported candidate was the son-in-law of two-term President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and had served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of the Treasury, and the first chairman of the Federal Reserve. Wilson himself re-instituted racial segregation in the U.S. government during his time as president.
Likewise, Nazi sympathies by such Americans as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh likely affected the speed of U.S. involvement in WWII. Then President Fraznklin Roosevelt took a cautious approach toward the European war out of concern that those and other influential Americans had the power and money to derail his 1940 re-election bid.
On the other issue, Wright did not say the the government created AIDS. He said that given some other things the government has done, he believed it to be possible (from comments made at National Press Club in 2008).
“… based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”
In the Tuskegee Experiment the U.S. Public Health Service infected poor black men with syphilis, then studied for 40 years (until 1972) the affects of the untreated disease on those men.
Wright also cited the book “Emerging Viruses: Ebola and AIDS,” by Leonard Horowitz. The book purports to provide evidence of a US Defense Department program to develop viruses that would attack the human immune system. A principle researcher for that program, according to the book, was the same doctor who later identified the AIDS virus.
Many mainstream reviewers question whether Horowitz has the goods to prove his case. But it (as well as the KKK/Nazi influence on US government) does lend some creedence to Wright’s rants.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
34He believes the government gave them drugs?
Comment by: David H
35No. Wright knows that in 1932 the US government purposefully infected 399 Black Americans with syphilis. The men were not told what was being done to them.
Initially the study had some dubious merit because syphilis was not an easily treated disease. However, even when treatment became available the government doctors chose to simply observe the progressive and degenerative effects of the disease. They even prevented some of the men from seeking outside treatment for their ailments.
The program was terminated in 1972 after leaks to the press led to an investigation. According to a Wikipedia citation: “By then, of the 399 infected participants, 28 had died of syphilis and another 100 had died from medical complications related to syphilis. In addition, 40 wives of participants had been infected with syphilis, and 19 children had contracted the disease at birth.”
This case is neither rumor nor conjecture. It is well-documented fact. It has been called “the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history” and clinicians began debating its affect on African-American attitudes toward government-sponsored health care long before Rev. Wright cited it in a sermon and later remarks at the National Press Club.
Comment by: benjamin ady
36I’m really confused by this:
Seems like David said “Where is your source that Obama is backing down on the tax cuts for 95% of Americans”, and Mike said “I’m having a really hard time finding a source, but here’s a link to a source saying Obama is NOT going to REPEAL a tax CUT for the rich”
Did I miss something? or was the triple negative (Not, repeal, cut) just too confusing? =)
Isn’t it also true that CIA back in the 80′s was actively involved in illegal drug trade vis a vis Iran Contra etc.? If it is, then to some extent the government was bringing illegal drugs into the country and then locking people up for buying them. And no doubt the largish majority of prosecutions and convictions for illegal drug crimes are directed at blacks.
BICBW =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
37Mike, I’m wondering what you mean when you say “Word-Faith” teacher. Cause it sounds like the sort of thing I also have a problem with (I’m thinking .. Joel Osteen). But I just haven’t seen that from Mr. Wright. maybe I missed it. Could you describe what you mean by the term, and then cite Mr. Wright being whatever you mean, specifically?
Comment by: benjamin ady
38Is it wrong to ask God to damn those who inflict really horrible damage and pain on us? Before you answer, please remember that God’s ultimate characterization of David was that he was “a man after God’s own heart” =)
Comment by: benjamin ady
39Peter, you rock! =) Have you read Dan Allender’s 2004 lament about election horrors along similar lines: Raping Eve: Reflections on War Rape, the Political Process, And Grace. Your article reminded me of it.
Comment by: benjamin ady
40Mike,
thank you for the link to the article about the debate about Wikipedia’s neutrality. It was fascinating =)
Comment by: Eliza
41David H wrote in #17 above:
Obama never could have been elected if he hadn’t repudiated Jeremiah Wright. I too was disappointed when he did so, but then again I would have been even more disappointed to have McCain, Palin, or H. Clinton in the White House instead of Obama. At least Obama had the opportunity to listen to, and learn from, Rev. Wright over those many years. It’s a background that no other U.S. President has likely ever had, or wanted. I’m glad he had that exposure, even if he had to pretend later that he had never agreed with Rev. Wright.
People running for office have to learn how to “be just another politician”, or at least have to learn how to act like they are, or “we” voters – and our system, including the media & the political parties – will never let them get past county executive. And maybe not even that far.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
42*snicker*
I didn’t come here to debate the issues that have no bearing on anything now that Obama is already elected.
I came here through a link from a friend who liked what was being said by Peter. I read it and responded that it wasn’t a complete and fair representation of the “religious right”. I have said my peace. I will never convince anyone to change as long as they believe the rhetoric and talking points.
I respectfully leave you all to continue to discuss if you want. Wright is a liar and doesn’t preach the GOOD NEWS of Jesus. He preaches hate and disdain for people who have long asked for forgiveness and he gives no grace as Jesus would. Black Liberation Theology is not Good News that Jesus preaches.
Comment by: benjamin ady
43Mike,
completely aside from all of the above, I’d love to hear what is your take on what you call “The good news of Jesus”? This is something I’ve been trying to wrap my head around for some time now. Thanks! =)
I’m always on the lookout for BIG good news (as you did capitalize it) in a world that seems rather more full of the bad than the good type of news.
Actually I’d be happy to hear anyone’s take on that, not just Mike’s =)
Comment by: Mike Lewis
44Let me tell you Benjamin, it is a tough time and seems to be more evident this time of year because of the talk of Jesus’ birth and blessings.
My niece was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy which has a life expectancy of 1-2 years. She is only 6 months old. This devastated her parents and our whole family. But, through it all God has been praised and has drawn less “religious” or less “faithful” people closer to Him.
No one has asked “Why God?” but has said, “May You be praised through this situation.”
My Family Life Pastor has been battling cancer for a couple of years now. He was recently told his medicine isn’t working. The tumors are large and growing. “Though he slay me, I will hope in Him” as Job says is Ron’s mantra. He looks horrible, but his spirits are very high. He can’t wait to meet God…although he prays like Hezekiah for 15 more years.
My mom had to quit her job due to her diabetes that is out of control. They won’t be able to buy Christmas presents for others this year…something that kills them. They are givers.
We’re filled with a hope for a future life in heaven where there is no pain or sorrow.
The GOOD news is that while I was a sinner and the heavenly hosts knew I would be one…filled with all kinds of evil things, Christ still died for me because he wanted to bless me with a gift far more awesome than anything under my tree this month. God loves me. Jesus died for me. I can have hope in the resurrection.
The GOOD news is that social status is irrelevant. The GOOD news is that I don’t have to have money to buy what Jesus has. The GOOD news is that I don’t have to be good to have this gift. God GAVE it to me for free even when I was acting the fool.
THAT is GOOD news!
I wanted to come back and say to everyone here God Bless you all! May God’s grace and peace be on all your households this season. Merry Christmas to everyone. My hope and prayer is that God can change us all to be the people he intended us to be through His Son Jesus some 2,000 years ago. I have found that there are people of all walks of life that want this. Even Republicans. LOL!
Comment by: Helen
45Mike, thanks again for your participation in this conversation and for answering Benjamin’s question.
I’m sorry to hear what your family and pastor have been going through recently. I’m glad you have hope in the midst of those difficult circumstances.
Thanks for the Christmas wishes – Merry Christmas to you too.
Comment by: martingugino
46Peter H
Here is what confused me:
So I figured that you didn’t mean your first statement, since you provided a counter-example right after that.
Anyway, even if you meant it, I don’t agree with you on that one point – I don’t think it was because he was black. I think they did it because they thought it might work.
Comment by: Seren
47I’m trying to think of something terribly wise to say, from an outsider’s (Australian’s) perspective. It’s not coming to me! I am fascinated that this thread has attracted so many posts.
I do have a question. When Peter says,
are these vocal opponents non-Right Christians, or does he mean, as we say in Australia, Left Wing Pinkos?
Comment by: Dwayne Hilty
48I feel like I’m jumping in the conversation a little late, but…
I took the “heated rhetoric from the Religious Right” comment to point to what Peter is perceiving as a general posture that the Christian establishment has taken in America towards abortion and homosexuality. That is obviously an “at-a-glance” statement, and I think something that has become detrimental to Christianity in America is the pervasive short, choppy descriptions of various sides and viewpoints (this, by the way, comes from both sides and quite frankly, isn’t helpful).
I think this feeds into the general attitude of our culture to segment the “religious right” as being “stupid” or “thoughtless.” And based on many of the statements that I heard being made by some over the past year, I’m not sure if I really blame them for this label.
I suppose that is why I appreciate what people like Brian McClaren and Jim Wallis (www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/) have written in the past year, not because it is whole-sale perfect, but because it is causing Christianity to rethink its POSTURE in our culture.
Just a few thoughts…
Comment by: Peter Walker
49Seren: both.
martingugino: Ok, I finally understand what you’re saying. But no, I don’t see it as a counter example, because you couldn’t posit Hagan as a “secret Muslim” or a “terrorist” because she’s white and no one would believe it. They used “godless” because it didn’t carry problematic racial undertones. It’s a different tactic, but based on the same underlying strategy.
You said, “they did it because they thought it would work.” They only thought it would work BECAUSE he was a black man with an Arabic-sounding name.
Comment by: Peter Walker
50EVERYONE,
My apologies for not engaging actively in the discussion over the last week. I’ve been trying to keep my head above water through finals. Obviously, you’ve all done just fine without my vulgar voice chiming in.
One subject that has stuck out to me is concerning Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Mike, I’m glad you’re discussing here, and I respect your position. This is just my own honest pushback.
To her shock and horror, I told my Grandmother-in-Law last month: “Grandma, I would rather vote for an angry black man than a comfortable white man.”
There was more to the context than that, but I am really tired (no personal offense, truly) of the demonization of a black minister who represents MILLIONS of black Americans who DAILY experience the still-living effects of American slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.
He is not an evil man, and he did not say evil things. He said angry things, against an evil system of power, domination, and destruction that WAS (and in some ways, still IS) the United States of America (which is NOT synonymous with The Body of Christ).
Liberation Theology is a prolific, living, academically and spiritually valid approach to understanding the Gospel. And it is not the only approach.
I think that much of the response to Wright has been ethnocentric, uninformed, and in some cases, even hysterical. Are we so afraid of an angry black man, pointing out that white people still haven’t REALLY apologized?
Yes, I think the answer is – yes.
Peter
http://www.EmergingChristian.com
Comment by: Mike Lewis
51Nope.
http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=2616123&ct=5833681
http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=4132187&content_id=%7B72F98C76-6154-4A94-9C42-7359975ED8B1%7D¬oc=1
Comment by: Peter Walker
52Well, I guess if a conservative Christian website says that a non-conservative theological position is invalid, it must be an open-and-shut case…
;)
But I’m a Christian who believes in the indwelling Holy Spirit, the bodily Resurrection, and the inspiration of Scripture. I believe I am a sinner in need of grace. And I don’t believe in inerrancy or infallibility. And I think sin is far more than personal offenses against the laws of Moses.
And I think Christianity has been as responsible for the bad parts of me as the good parts.
And sometimes(when I’m paying attention) the Holy Spirit moves me in different ways, and to different conclusions than my Pentecostal sisters and brothers.
Which one of us is being lied to? Which of us is going to hell?
The universe isn’t open-and-shut, and neither is any discussion about God.
Mike, I appreciate your disagreement with Liberation Theology, and I’m fine with that. I didn’t even say I adhered to such theology. I said:
It’s one of many approaches, and I’ve got a hunch God is a lot more gracious than Equip.org.
By the way, I went to their main website through your link. I counted 4 middle aged white guys as the only photos.
But I did find this in their “Essentials of Faith” section:
Maybe Reverend Wright and other non-conservative evangelical Christians are part of that “all believers” piece and deserve more respect.
Thanks for the pushback, though. Blessings,
Peter
Comment by: benjamin ady
53Mike,
from the second article you linked:
my response to the last sentence is
Comment by: Mike Lewis
54Well, I had the same response to a lot of what Peter said about BLT too.
Of course a lot of religious viewpoints are based on a faulty hermeneutic.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
55Mike, you said
I read the book and liked it pretty much. Maybe I can find it and read it again with a more critical eye, but I think you are going to have to point out the bad parts to me.
I went to a church in Long Beach CA to protest the “collateral damage” – ie the killing of children in Iraq, to see if some would be interested. I had a banner essentially of this photo. They called the police on me. Property rights. I talked to the pastor later to see if there would be any group there that would be interested in issues of “war”, and he said no. These are not bad people. During the service, they had a slide promoting their outreach of ‘hats for the homeless’, which struck me at the time as just too too typical.
You have heard the question “If Christians are salt , and this is a Christian nation, why can’t we taste it?” What is the answer?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
56Peter:
They did not do it because THEY believed it. They did it because they thought WE might believe it. We didn’t.
I see it as a blunder on their part, rather than an indictment of the man in the street.
And I am not so sure that he IS a black man. Why is half-black the same as black, but half-white is not the same as white?
If you mean that his skin looks black, yes, that is true, but he is not Fred Hampton.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
57Re: Jeremiah Wright and class struggle
I liked JW, and was surprised that Barak pushed him aside so quickly. Liberation Theology had a strong following in the Catholic Church in South America, although the hierarchy frowned on it, I suppose after Bishop Romero was shot. (What do they know?) Class warfare makes perfect sense to me – if you care at all about the rich and if you don’t think they are a complete waste of time. You notice we don’t pray for the rich in church – there is almost no point some would say.
Comment by: David H
58The answer to that is as old as the black experience in the United States. In the old days, even post-slavery, a light-skinned “negro” could pass for white. But woe to them if the ever had darky relatives visit. The general rule was: if you look black, you are black; if you have blood relatives that look black, then you are black.
Early in Obama’s candidacy some raised questions about his blackness. Some of those were American black people. By the end of the campaign they accepted him as one of them. His appearance may have had something to do with that, although it wasn’t enough a few months earlier. Perhaps they recognized the tendency of others to treat him as a black man and decided that overcame his white half?
Just an anecdote from my youth. My dad is from Alabama. I spent summers down there as a child at his mother’s home. She wasn’t a racist, she treated niggers just like all of her white neighbors. Once, when she said something particularly egregious, I suggested to her that my lovely curly hair (blonde & beautiful like her son’s) was probably a genetic trait we received from some black women hidden in the family tree. She almost died from shock and anger.
My grandmother died several years ago. But every day I drive to work in one of New Jersey’s large cities. There I often encounter the living vestiges of racism. Heck, I have them myself when I am walking down a street and see a black man walking toward me.
So, why is half-white not white? Ask the people in the United States who, when asked why they couldn’t vote for Obama for president during polls, interviews, etc. , responded: I could never vote for a black man.
Comment by: David H
59The Catholic Church frowned on liberation theology before Romero was assassinated. Pope Paul VI began actively trying to suppress its growth in the early 1960s because it was “antithetical to the Catholic Church’s global teachings.” Many read that as: in South and Central America the biggest church contributors were among the worst oppressors.
Romero was assassinated in 1980 as the Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul II was making a rapprochement of sorts. At a 1979 conference in Puebla, Mexico, attended by some prominent Catholic liberation theologians, the Pope said: “this conception of Christ, as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechisms”; however, he did speak of “the ever increasing wealth of the rich at the expense of the ever increasing poverty of the poor”, but affirmed that the principle of private property “must lead to a more just and equitable distribution of goods . . . and, if the common good demands it, there is no need to hesitate at expropriation, itself, done in the right way….”
For me the most significant problem with the liberation theology that sprang up south of our border has to do with its justification or violence and armed struggle as a way that Jesus would have endorsed righting societal wrongs. However, knowing what I know of the forces at work in those societies, I understand where that came from.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
60Aren’t we somehow talking about something *different* than skin color here, ultimately? I mean isn’t that part of the point–that tone of skin color really *isn’t* as important as we’ve tried to make it?
This from Wikipedia:
hope that wasn’t too long.
seems to me like Jesus is into liberation theology. He certainly seems to choose to … “side with” the opressed, and … hell, he “starts his ministry” with that quote about … basically about liberation (you know, where he opens the scroll and reads the verse about liberating the slaves and so forth, and then kind of takes the bull by the horn by saying “Today this is fulfilled in your hearing” or something like that”)
As one of the rich people, I occasionally find myself slipping into the kind of thinking you describe with “think they (we) are a complete waste of time”. But I don’t think this is super helpful. You kind of nailed it. Probably we aren’t going to get much of anywhere as human beings until we manage to … get out of the rich people group and into the oppressed people group. or something like that.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
61Or how about the “pencil test”–also from Wikipedia–from their article on “one drop of blood”
Comment by: Peter Walker
62Ben, really great insights. Enjoyed both your posts here.
Comment by: Mike Lewis
63“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:38-48
“Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
“All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
“Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” Philippians 3:13-21
Comment by: Martin Gugino
64benj
I have to say, to me too.
Jesus was counter cultural, and more: deny yourself. Subversive? That’s why they killed him.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
65Dwayne
My take on their position is that in the fall, a few things got bent, and that among them are some sexual things.
I accept the teaching that one can participate in a sin by being silent or by facilitating it, so that Christians need to be careful about sinning in these ways. What I think is probably over-reach is saying how the state should deal with sins, or what notice it is appropriate for the state to take of them.
I was not clear about what you thought of the church’s actions on these topics.