This piece over at TPM Cafe entitled "The Irrelevance of Obama's Minister" is very good as is the excellent extended discussion in the comments in response. I particularly like those targeted to the importance of a "church" to a faith community and a late one comparing his comments to MLK. Those who I disagree with in various ways are as interesting as those I find right on the money. It is a great example of the possibilities of web discussion and free and open debate in general.
Two other things. First, if anything, I honestly would like if Obama in some fashion was sympathetic with some of the angry comments of the minister -- it would show a certain fire at injustice that to me is a good thing. This does not mean to imply that he supports the church largely for its activism in promotion of a more perfect community overall. IOW, what many think should be at the core of the Christian faith and faith/religion in general. It would be a sin, to speak in religious language, to miss the forest for the trees, to ignore all good the "church" (meaning the collective community of the faithful) here does for some harsh words (that some comments are right to suggest are more true than we wish) the minister made. Obama knows this, and more power to him:
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
His remarks distances Obama from the more angry comments. I said earlier and I say again that I fear Obama goes overboard in this respect. He starts off thusly:
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Some in the TPM Cafe comment thread simply don't agree with this sentiment and in some fashion nor do I. A line is drawn here, an important one, that separates disagreement and dissent from "disparaging" individuals and the nation at large. A line that surely was not honored by many biblical prophets and in some fashion, honestly, not Jesus himself. Rev. Wright got in trouble for some angry statements against "whites," the nation and Hillary Clinton. This includes suggesting in some fashion God should censor America for its actions.
A nation that allows the level of injustice that can be enumerated in sickening detail, in particular against groups disproportionately black (but a white/black divide is all too facile, as some note), warrants something of that line. Sometimes, our moral leaders need to call out, in anger too, such injustice. Those who enable it should be disparaged. As late comment noted, Martin Luther King Jr. did that. Anti-slavery activists did it. In some fashion, Goldwater was right -- extremism in promotion of right is not in error. It might be playing with fire and Obama is right to be wary of it. But, honest sorts will realize concern is not just in the tone. Some simply don't want some black preacher calling out this great nation, "our nation right or wrong" their motto.
It is not patriotism to not point out what is wrong with this country. That is not "great" in some ways. We can do that just as we can criticize members of our family and our friends -- they like members of our country are part of us, part of our kith and kin. We get to criticize their flaws, "disparage" them when need be. We must be careful not to go overboard, and maybe it was done here to some degree. Such is the nature of things, as I said. We are sometimes intemperate. To completely reject this, however, is wrong. His dismissal in other words was excessive, but such his frame. It works for him and is politically useful, though as with Samantha Power, it just might be overused sometimes. The perils of politics, perhaps.
Second, comparisons are made to McCain's push to get John Hagee to endorse him. As I discuss in my detail here [particularly my later extended reply*], the problem probably boils down to the selective treatment supplied here. Treatment, as comments on the thread suggest, some refuse to believe exists. Differences also can be noted in respect to the fact that McCain aimed for a political endorsement here while Obama sees Jeremiah Wright more as a religious mentor. This is an important distinction and the fact McCain didn't have a long time relationship with the guy, and the corresponding complicated nuances referenced in the comments, counts as well.
[To toss in another somewhat related issue, I watched Conan O'Brien Friday night (taped it really), and found his bit about crazy stamp series wickedly stupid -- his speciality. This included one about Bush, riffing yet again on him being stupid. This in a twisted sense benefits him -- some like the anti-intellectual flavor. What about more about his recklessness and arrogance? I do note that the last half century has brought a slew of easy to ridicule presidents. We all generally have some exaggerated trait, but these guys had at least one in spades. BTW, the easy riff on McCain is out there too -- he is some grumpy old guy. He'll take that, huh?]
We treat religious beliefs as relevant, however, when we sneer at the beliefs of certain people on the Right. So, this only can take us so far, especially as people miss the (relevant) difference. Thus, it is notable Obama firmly denounced the guy's more divisive comments, underlining politically he doesn't go that way. And, yes, if Obama supported a Hagee sort, I would have deep problems. But, it is doubtful he would be the Democratic nominee, right? We can be upset at the selective and suspiciously timed nature of the controversy. Can we not also use if as a window into a productive debate as well, especially since simplistic use of "value voters" etc. is part of the problem these days?
Maybe, it is relevant after all. How so, well, that's a different question.
---
* My original comment on the Slate fray that I link here originated when Today's Papers yesterday referenced a LAT article about the Obama/minister issue and noted said article noted how a minister McCain supported said "mean" things about Catholics. This is a lame adjective to describe what the guy really said, but I also tossed in a comment why he was an issue in the first place.
The replies focused on this add-on comment, but (as my later extended reply noted) this does ignore my original concern about how the press reported on the story.