A few days ago my Sis emailed me reminding me that Barack Obama was something of a follower of Saul Alinsky's teaching.( You will recall, also, that Hillary Rodham wrote her Master's thesis about Alinsky as well.) A light went off, and it occurred to me why Obama picked Reverend Wright's church when he came to Chicago to organize after his graduation from Columbia.
Alinsky, you may recall, was a radical organizer during the Depression and afterward. He was broadly associated with Marxists and Communists in organizing communities around the country and particularly in Chicago. He was active in organizing the old CIO. He denies that he was ever a Communist, but admitted freely to working with them. He was probably the most effective radical organizer in the US through the 1960s, and a devout leftist.
There is an old interview with Alinsky that was in Playboy magazine done a few months before he died, and what he said is informative on this issue:
"ALINSKY: Well, the first thing I did, the first thing I always do, is to move into the community as an observer, to talk with people and listen and learn their grievances and their attitudes. Then I look around at what I've got to work with, what levers I can use to pry closed doors open, what institutions or organizations already exist that can be useful. In the case of Back of the Yards, the area was 95 percent Roman Catholic, and I recognized that if I could win the support of the Church, we'd be off and running. Conversely, without the Church, or at least some elements of it, it was unlikely that we'd be able to make much of a dent in the community....."( Read the whole thing, it is very interesting)
This Back of the Yards community was in Chicago. What Alinsky describes here is the same situation that faced Obama when he first arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, and one could speculate that Obam's approach was the same as Alinsky's.
Obama found a very large black church with a very popular pastor in the community, became a part of it, and legitimized himself within the community he was organizing. The pastor, Reverend Wright, took him in, helped and encouraged him. Perhaps the fact that the pastor and the church followed the black liberation theology that was described by James Cone, a black liberation theologian had little to do with his choice.
A church becomes one's family. Obama was apparently very comfortable there and developed a strong personal relationship with Wright, as anyone would with one's own pastor. If there was such a relationship, it would be a very difficult one to break. Having heard some of Mrs. Obama's statements, it occurs to me that she might be much more in tune with the theology than he is. Again, that would be pure speculation.
So, what is black liberation theology? Simplistically, it is a Christian theology that worships Christ and blames many of the world's problems on white racists. According to a Wake Forest University website:
"..Liberation theology as it has expressed itself in the African-American community seeks to find a way to make the gospel relevant to black people who must struggle daily under the burden of white oppression. The question that confronts these black theologians is not one that is easily answered. "What if anything does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless black men," to use James Cone's words, whose existence is "threatened on a daily basis by the insidious tentacles of white power?" If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.
"There are many reasons why Christianity has not been real for blacks. To begin with, white Christianity emphasizes individualism, and divides the world into separate realms of the sacred and secular, public and private. Such a view of the world is alien to African-American spirituality. The Christianity that was communicated to blacks had as its primary focus life in world to come. This was at odds with traditional African spirituality which was focused on life in the present world. And if that were not enough, Christianity is hopelessly associated with slavery and segregation in the minds of many African-Americans....."
There is, of course, much more to it. There are other sites here, and here. In relation to Obama's church and the Reverend Wright, Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers says:
"...Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."
"Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....."
There is more, much more. The few cites I have made aren't the whole story. The real question is what does this type of thinking contribute to either the church or to African-American members of the church?
One of the ministeries of Trinity United Church of Christ is HIV/Aids outreach as mentioned by Obama in his speech. Mark Steyn points out:
"...But maybe he wouldn't have to quite so much "reaching out" to do and maybe there wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from HIV/AIDS" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic conspiracy theories to his own community....."
So, what does this all tell us about Obama? He said in his Philadelphia speech:
"...I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed...."
So he disagrees with all that Jeremiah Wright says that might reflect upon his chances at election. He continues to expose his children to the hate and just plain lies that is a part of the church philosophy. And he wants everyone to feel guilty that a church and theology like that are necessary because of white racism, particularly in the past.
Perhaps Mark Steyn's conclusion says it best:
"...Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama's choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that – what's the word? – racist?..."
Read all the citations, and then:
You decide.
UPDATE:
Some new sites I recommend are here and here. Both are good, much more in depth, discussions of the issue.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
More Barack Obama
Since the last post, recordings of Barack Obama's pastor have emerged. Both excerpts are shocking, of course, particularly the "G-- D--- America" quote.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
The quotes were apparently first reported this year by ABC News, and then spread to FOX and through the blogosphere. There has not been much about it in much of the mainstream media other than ABC, with only some mild references to the subject.
One of the recordings is here. The second one, and the worst, has been pulled down by YouTube for some reason.
What effect will this have on Obama's chances? It's hard to tell. On the one hand, we have religious freedom in this country, and most of us are going to look at the character and track record of a candidate to make decisions about him or her.
In this case, however, we have little track record to ponder. Mr. Obama's record is pretty bare. Even when he had the chance to vote on important matters, he chose to vote present, instead. We are, therefore, left to guess what he really stands for, or rely on what he says.
I have learned over the years that a politician's words must be parsed pretty carefully. Politicians will say many things to get one's vote, then "forget" about it when elected. A voter must really look to actions.
Obama has attended this church for 17 years. One must find that from his actions, he supports the black liberation theology espoused by the church and his pastor, even if he denounces the particular statements in the recordings.
Is that a reason to not vote for him? Can he represent all Americans?
One curious thing I have found is that the New York Times knew about this a year ago. In an article then, they said:
"...On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”..."
"...Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”
Mr. Obama says they are not.
“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”
“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”.."
And then:
"...Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” ( via Perfunction and Instapundit )
Go to Perfunction and read the post there. Obama used tapes of Wright's sermons to practice his oratory, it seems.
Powerline also has a great piece on this subject. I recommend it.
The political year continues to get more and more interesting as it goes along. What next?
UPDATE:
Another article that everyone interested should read is one by Ben Wallace-Wells in Rolling Stone on February 22, 2007. Originally entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" it is now titled "Destiny's Child." (Wonder why they changed the title?)
UPDATE 2:
Mark Steyn has a brief statement that is on topic here.
STILL MORE: The gift that keeps on giving. Obama's church now accuses the media of "crucifixion." See here.
This is beginning to get out of hand, folks. It appears to me that any point to be made by all of this has already been made. Time to move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)