black…MYstory

Well, I’m not done with John McCain just yet.

Much has been made over statements by Barack Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright. From about 30 seconds from a couple of sermons, this man was dismissed as a racist, anti-American kook.

However, little has been made of McCain’s “pastor problem”. Though John Hagee is not McCain’s pastor, per se, he is someone whose endorsement McCain sought out for a year and, even after Hagee’s statements about referring to the Catholic church as “the great whore” and Hagee’s assertion that Jesus never saw himself as the Messiah and his claim that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for a gay-pride parade scheduled in New Orleans, McCain has said that he rejects some of Pastor Hagee’s statements but heartily accepts his endorsement.

In my previous post about Hagee, I promised that there would be more and more there is. Hagee often touts himself as a friend of Israel. There is a belief that there are some evangelicals who want to hasten the coming of Armageddon. The idea would be to bring about the second coming of Jesus and fulfill the prophecies in the book of Revelations. Part of that is to make sure that Jewish people are securely back in their biblical homeland in order for Christ to return. However, in this belief, this would not mean the salvation of most Jewish people. In fact, this belief states that Jewish people would be cast into Hell, along with other “non-believers”, unless they convert. Some friends of Israel, huh?

I say all that to help provide some context for a recently-revealed sermon from John Hagee. In a sermon delivered in the late 90’s, Hagee stated that Hitler was an instrument of God to force the Jewish people to return to the land of Israel.

You read right. Hagee stated that Hitler was doing God’s will when he persecuted, enslaved and murdered millions of Jewish people. But, I’ll let you hear the words for yourself. Someone has posted the audio of this sermon and it’s as crazy as I’ve stated here.

Some will say that McCain’s pastor problem is nothing compared to Obama’s. I would agree — it’s not the same, it’s worse.

You see, McCain clearly referred to these people as “agents of intolerance” when he last ran for president. Therefore, he knew the type of people he was climbing into bed with, politically, when he actively and eagerly sought out their endorsements. He can’t argue that the was blinded by friendship or familial loyalty. He went in with both eyes open.

So, corporate media, is this story sensational enough for you to give McCain’s endorser 1/100th of the attention you paid to Rev. Wright? It seems that Hagee has more than enough material to keep you busy.

Popularity: 17% [?]

So, as we go into what seems to be the umpteenth week of talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I want to know why white preachers associated with other politicians aren’t receiving this same level of scrutiny.

For example, John McCain sought out and got the endorsement of John Hagee. Hagee runs a church with over 17,000 members and is a televangelist. However, Hagee also has some views that many would consider extreme. But — surprise — there is no call for McCain to reject and denounce Hagee.

I have added a couple of clips at the end. The first is where Hagee refers to the Catholic church as “the great whore”, a “false cult system” and quotes Hitler as a way of likening the actions of the Catholic church to some of Hitler’s atrocities.

The second clip shows Hagee hawking a book (”In Defense of Israel”) in which Hagee says that Jesus never saw himself as a Messiah. In other words, he is saying that Jesus never saw himself as the Christ, which I would say is pretty interesting for a Christian minister.

Rest assured, there’s much more on this guy out there and I intend to share it with you. As I understand it, he has made some very interesting statements about why Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and a “slave sale” fundraiser he held in 1996.

At any rate, here are the clips so you can see for yourselves.

Also, here’s a sort of rebuttal of Hagee’s book by a member of the same Christian United for Israel group as John Hagee:

Popularity: 18% [?]

If you do a search for “Obama” on this site, you’ll that I have had a lot of good things to say about Barack Obama but, I’ve also levied some criticisms against him, as well.

Over a year ago, I raised a question in a post titled “Obama: Who are you?”, where I pondered what type of person he was when he dis-invited his then-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from delivering the invocation when Obama announced is candidacy for President.

You see, for me, it was not particularly about religion or the church. My questions were best summed up in this part of my post:

So, upon word from his handlers, Obama has begun distancing himself from the person he calls his spiritual advisor.

In regards to this, I have heard some discuss how, if he wants to be President, Obama needs to do this. However, I know a lot of black folks with whom this won’t sit well. For one, many in the churchgoing crowd will ask what type of man turns his back on his pastor for political reasons? For those not in this group, some will ask, “if he is willing to compromise on this, what else is negotiable?”

When snippets of a couple of Rev. Wright’s sermons were released, Obama showed me that he could distance himself from some of Rev. Wrights comments (which, in context, I couldn’t really find issue with) without throwing Rev. Wright under the bus. I respected that.

Fast-forward a few weeks and Rev. Wright is doing speaking engagements and Barack Obama is campaigning. Rev. Wright continues to speak his mind and, the press being the press, focuses on tabloid issues versus any real issues affecting Americans. So, all yesterday, I hear pundits, both white and black, talking about how terrible it is that Wright is speaking, that he should go off quietly and that, if he won’t, Obama should publicly repudiate Wright.

(As an aside — isn’t it funny that white politicians can have associations with some highly-controversial figures and not be held accountable for their statements/actions? But, I digress.)

Well, Obama folded and publicly repudiated Jeremiah Wright.

The video of this should be up soon on this link but, here’s a passage that I found kind of disturbing:

“People want some help in stabilizing their lives, and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that’s what we should be talking about,” Obama said. “The fact that Rev. Wright would think that somehow it was approriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry but also saddens me.”

Maybe I just gleaned something different from it but, very little has been said about any policy matters for months, now, and Rev. Wright was far from the only “distraction”. Rev. Wright just chose a time to speak that the Obama campaign found politically inopportune. Obama seemed to be saying that Wright is speaking at a time that was bad for his campaign. Next, I expect Obama to announce a complete break from his church in order to attend a church that the white establishment would approve of him going.

Barack Obama might say he is saddened by his pastor but, I think something else is saddening him — he just finished becoming the politician that he told us he wouldn’t. For his sake, I hope he wins the Presidency because, otherwise, he will have abandoned his principles for nothing.

Popularity: 14% [?]

It occurred to me that a lot of folks didn’t really hear the words of Rev.  Jeremiah Wright before going off on him.  Well, I take that back…they did hear about 10 seconds of his sermon but, didn’t bother to hear more because it was easier to be spoonfed their opinions by pundits than it was to find out the real deal for themselves.  For those who have not heard the sermon in context, I offer a broader excerpt of it.  You can see and hear that the sound bite the media took doesn’t quite sound the same when listened to along with the statement preceding and following it.

Edit: In case those haven’t seen the context of the “God damn America” statement, you should check this out in its proper context, as well.

Popularity: 49% [?]

I read something today that made me take pause. The reason that it so caught my attention was that it came out of Cincinnati and it was not some right-wing rant about Rev. Wright but, instead, a thoughtful support of his right to express his views.

Adam Clark, an assistant professor in the Department of Theology at Xavier University, delivers his message in both eloquent and plain tones to explain why America should quit trying to view what Wright said through a political lens and, instead, look at his statements through lens of both Christian theology and the Black Church tradition.

Wright, however, is a preacher; his oath is not to the Constitution but to the Gospel. The statements of Wright may be out of step with the presidential politics of the Obama campaign, but they are not out of step with biblical faith. The forceful denunciations of America’s invasion of Iraq, her support for the unjust practices of foreign governments as well as the invocation of God’s wrath for the inhumane treatment of blacks and people of color are not the crazed anti-American ranting of an old uncle, but statements about the meaning of faith in a God who upsets the powers through identifying with the poor and marginalized.

The presidential candidacy of Obama can be assessed on its own terms. But the uproar over the rhetoric of Wright is largely a result of America’s unfamiliarity with the history and language of the black church. The political character of black sermons such as Wright’s are not rooted in the give and take of electoral politics, they derive from biblical faith. The black church has historically identified with the minority Jewish population of the first century. They regard the Jewish population’s relationship to the Roman Empire as similar to their own relationship to the American Empire. This identification has caused black Christians to make a distinction between the biblical Jesus and the American Christ. The American Christ is a product of the American middle class, a deity who endorses empire and converts his followers into being pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. The biblical Jesus reveals a God who is provocative, a God who upsets the powers and is eventually rejected and crucified by them.

The language of the black church that conveys this oppositionality does not translate well into the arena of presidential politics. It was never intended to. The black church’s language is the language and worldview of a people who have been at the margins of social power - a symbolic language, not a literal language. Words seldom have a one-to-one correspondence with events. Black religious language is inherently evocative, hyperbolic and impassioned - aimed more toward devotion than debate. It is intended to convey divine ecstasy and anger to parishioners, not dialogue among pundits.

Mr. Clark, thank you for your excellent analysis.

Popularity: 14% [?]

For a while now, I have stayed away from the whole Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco. Trust me, it’s not that I’m afraid to talk about it. It’s because that, on its face, this is more “contrived” than “controversy”.

What do I mean? I see this as not so much people being offended by what he said. I believe that people are offended that a black person would have the audacity to say such things. You see, if you’re a white minister and you blame 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina on gays, even though you’re tied into presidents and political parties, it’s no big deal. But, if you’re a black minister and you call out the country you served for as a Marine over its foreign policy, that’s just unacceptable and you become public enemy #1.

Now, how deep does this racial acrimony go with some critics? Well, we have seen media pundits, specifically Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan go after both Rev. Wright and Sen. Barack Obama over Wright’s remarks for what has been weeks, now. They go so far as to say that Obama should have denounced Wright long ago and walked away from that church. You see, despite a 30-year track record of service in the south side of Chicago that has seen him help people of all colors, genders, sexual orientations and health statuses (including an AIDS ministry), the body of Wright’s work should be invalidated by what amounts to about 5-10 minutes of statements, much of which, if argued on their merits, could be construed as true or at least in need of deeper discussion.

Now, I point out O’Reilly, Hannity and Buchanan because, as I said, they criticize Obama for not walking away from his church. Now, why do I call them out? You see, all three are Catholics. Now, if you remember, the big thing in the news a few years back was how the Catholic church in America, from the top down, had covered up rampant pedophilia among its clergy, primarily priests.

You see, we are not talking about a few statements by one person in one church. We are talking about the actions of the leadership of the Catholic Church in this country knowingly allowing molesting clergy to continue to move from parish to parish, only to molest other children. This went on for decades. Furthermore, when finally having to answer for this cover-up, the church ended up spending millions in hush money and court settlements, of which I’m sure included donation money from Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Buchanan. However, this was not enough to drive these three out of the Catholic Church.

So, my question to these three is why didn’t they denounce the Catholic Church in this country when they found out about these rampant abuses? How could they have walked into a Catholic church or let their children or grandchildren be involved in a church when the possibility of being molested by a priest existed? Isn’t this a question of character?

In the end, in their upside-down existences, a few “bad” words outweigh many good deeds. In their world, black people should be silent or, at least when speaking, should only express gratitude for the the white people who “have done so much for them”. In their world, to paraphrase Chris Rock, “if it’s all-white, then it’s all right”, meaning, in this case, that it’s only bad if a person who is not of their color, political views or sexual persuasion does it (you can choose their order of preference).

In the end, to them, words speak louder than actions and it’s okay to live in a glass house and throw stones.

Popularity: 16% [?]